Internet Hate 2...and How To Rise Above

What was this thread even about... I forget!

Khaos wrote: Of course the steel analogy works,just as much as the fire one. It doesn't really add anything that hasn't been said already though. Just gives it prettier wrapping.

All analogies serve only to change the presentation of information. In some cases the analogy makes the info easier to digest, and in others it serves to make it less offensive. I believe that anything one can do to improve the understandability of information "adds" to the conversation. But hey, I could be wrong.

Wescli Wardest wrote: What was this thread even about... I forget!

It was not initially about anything, just a random video I saw online that gave me an idea. The intention was for it to be completely open to interpretation and see if any discussion would come from it. It seems to have worked to me.

I was just curious. We seem to have a theme going for a while but it went some where elses. Then I went back to read what all had been said and couldn't find a base topic.

Ok, so I'm not going nuts!

hahahahhahahahahhaha

I tend to avoid steering conversation usually but I do want to go back to something from the first page for a bit.

Alexandre Orion wrote: Any discussion about 'hate' is related to any other discussion about 'hate'. Stands to reason. What stands against reason is that, just as with many other testimonies about the effects of discrimination, we tend to moralise. This may not be the best measure, for moralising has the effect of breeding hypocrisy. One desires to be seen by others as moral, just, egalitarian ... whether one really and truly feels that way or not.

There again, just as with any other behaviour, the internet affords one the anonymity to indulge oneself in what one would not want to be seen doing in society. The illusions are multiple : first, that 'people' on the internet are not 'people' at all, but just images, another sort of icône, a 'username', an avatar, & cetera. Unfortunately, we can see this even in the off-line world, whereas people are not really regarded as other living, feeling, experiencing beings just like ourselves, but as details of the environment, to be appreciated or ignored. Or, in the worse case, abused as we abuse the environment.

The second deceitful illusion is that of the anonymity, and this deception is two-fold. In primo, hate is catagorically a manifestation of fear. Fear of the perceived injury to our cleverly crafted self-image that would be inflicted by seeing someone that we choose (or have been taught to choose) to view as 'other' than oneself ; fear that others may see and compare us to the victim of the hatred - and all engaged in it are experiencing this same fear. Spreading fear/hate on the Internet, though seemingly safely done from behind the screen, makes it more visible to more and more people than a 'random act of spleen' would be in person. And if it is not removed by someone (an adminstrator, for example), it stays there for a really, really long time ...

But - hence the second deception - one cannot be anonymous to oneself. As human beings, we are naturally empathic. We feel one anothers' pain acutely. This makes us desire to be as moral as we seek to appear to others. So, though the fear in us makes us behave horribly toward one another frequently and then use all sorts of justifications and reasons to hide from our own cowardliness - it doesn't clean up the conscience very well.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that whether it be in the Internet or in one's own kitchen, hate/fear begins and ends with self, no matter how ghastly one's behaviour is toward someone else. It is the clearest display of how suffering breeds suffering - a vicious cycle that perpetuates itself among people but also within the individual. The remedy for this is simply to allow oneself to feel our natural empathy and altruism, without resorting to the artifice of morality.

This was actually one of my favorite points that never really got touched on. I had 2 questions based on my interpretation of what Alexandre wrote.

At what point does it become wrong to not express how we actually feel for the sake of morality or "right" and "wrong"?

Should we always try to see both sides at the expense of our own morality?

Resticon asked:

At what point does it become wrong to not express how we actually feel for the sake of morality or "right" and "wrong"?

Should we always try to see both sides at the expense of our own morality?

Alexandre Orion wrote:

But - hence the second deception - one cannot be anonymous to oneself. As human beings, we are naturally empathic. We feel one anothers' pain acutely. This makes us desire to be as moral as we seek to appear to others. So, though the fear in us makes us behave horribly toward one another frequently and then use all sorts of justifications and reasons to hide from our own cowardliness - it doesn't clean up the conscience very well.

I agree that we are (or start off) empathetic. But I also feel that due to exposure, and in many cases over exposure, to things we previously held as not desirable we lose our connection to our empathy. An example from history… the Romans did not start out being (what we would consider today) as blood-thirsty. But looking back over the history we have of them we see how gradual exposure to constant violence lead to grievous acts held in the coliseum for spectator amusement. And now due to free speech, ratings and mans desire to be “awed” we see a constant influx of sex and violence which I feel leads to the desensitizing of our global society.

At what point does it become wrong according to morality? Who’s morality are we talking about?

The question I would counter with, “is the expression of your opinion more valuable then the emotional well being of another?” Or, “are we selfish enough to put ourselves before others?”

What was it we learned as children… The Golden Rule! “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Wescli Wardest wrote: At what point does it become wrong according to morality? Who’s morality are we talking about?

Your own morality, the morality of the person expressing their feelings.

For example, my morality says that murder is wrong. I understand that the morality of a serial killer may be that it is perfectly acceptable because they are weeding out the weak or getting enjoyment from it or something similar.

Should we express our feelings that murder is wrong by locking up the serial killer? If so, at what point do we accept that a serial killer expressing their feelings that murder is right is valid? Do we accept something only when it becomes law?

Wescli Wardest wrote: The question I would counter with, “is the expression of your opinion more valuable then the emotional well being of another?” Or, “are we selfish enough to put ourselves before others?”

What was it we learned as children… The Golden Rule! “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The Golden Rule is a form of morality as well though. I doubt the serial killer I mentioned above follows the Golden Rule. By putting our belief that murder is wrong into a law are we putting our own morality and feelings above those of the serial killer's?

How do you define murder? Or, are human beings the only ones we consider being able to be murdered? There are people that are paid to kill masses of living things every day. And they are not in jail. Perhaps, we lock up murderers because we do not want them doing it again. But that is a debate about justice.

My morality, ethos or code of ethics steers me toward the path of putting the well being of the whole first and to consider others before myself. All other considerations are secondary.

Wescli Wardest wrote: How do you define murder? Or, are human beings the only ones we consider being able to be murdered? There are people that are paid to kill masses of living things every day. And they are not in jail. Perhaps, we lock up murderers because we do not want them doing it again. But that is a debate about justice.

I define murder as being "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

It is a debate about justice indeed...and yet also about choosing one's morality vs another's and determining how we can defend our belief that killing is wrong by saying it is law but then we say there is no wrong because of our perception or that putting our feelings over another's is wrong. At what point do you draw the line? When it becomes law, when it impacts another person, when you think it is wrong, etc?

There are other laws that some people believe are right while others believe they are wrong that never impact any other person but the one doing it, ex. use of Marijuana.

Then there are things that impact other people and are considered right or wrong that do not have a law to decide which is correct, ex. internet hatred.

Wescli Wardest wrote: My morality, ethos or code of ethics steers me toward the path of putting the well being of the whole first and to consider others before myself. All other considerations are secondary.

Are you putting your thoughts that what you feel is right above others who believe that your right is wrong though? I kind of feel that this even ties into election day in a way. People in America usually feel that not voting is a bad thing. But by voting for one person over another are we putting our feelings and morals of what is right over another's feelings and morals about what they think are right?

Wescli Wardest wrote: “are we selfish enough to put ourselves before others?”

Aren't we all just a little bit selfish in a way?

Khaos wrote: Lol, I wasn't trying to upset you, but its a wonder if I didn't that you felt it important enough to mention.

As fir me being upset, at what point did I "lash out"?

I mentioned it because I thought it was funny. Hence the lol and the smiling faces...maybe I should add more?:huh:

It's also not lost on me what you just tried to do here. Trying to use on me the argument I just used on you. As for the lashing out, how about you try and reread your posts. If you can't find it then we'll just let it go.