Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

They can only call you names and attempt to defame you, and you can ignore those just as well as you can in real life.

Which, if you're a social teenager, is not likely to be very well. Between wanting to prove them wrong and the self-esteem issues that a lot of teenagers have to deal with, it's hard to ignore insults. It's easier in the short-term to insist they aren't true, but repetition makes that next to impossible in the long-term, and by doing that in the short-term they've already tossed out the ignore option.

I mean, yeah, I can see an argument for it being somewhat less nasty, but it's far from harmless, especially given the increasing amount of socializing that takes place over the internet. It's definitely comparable, and "They should just ignore it" is advice about as useful as "They should just stop fighting wars".

Oh, well nevermind then.

[Bohandas]

The problem that I have with it is that I believe that the sentence itself constitutes bullying as well.

[Strife26]

Conducted by a legal government in accordance with the laws?

[Lectorog]

The problem that I have with it is that I believe that the sentence itself constitutes bullying as well.

The government can't bully. People are appointed because they're supposed to be fair.
That's how it works in the UK, right?

He's getting punished as an approach to solving the problem these families have.

[freeformschooler]

Because, like kaijyuu said, my argument is utilitarian at its core, whereas yours is less so, Bauglir, the teenager thing made presenting my argument more difficult, and understanding yours doubly so, because as a utilitarian argument I was not referring to any specific situation or age group or person or group of people, so I could not argue for or against this teenage girl. My argument is about Generic Person A who is cyberbullying Generic Person B.

Have I mentioned using the word "cyberbullying" in a sentence sounds strange?

[Bohandas]

Conducted by a legal government in accordance with the laws?

So was the Holocaust.

(Godwins law; in first)

[Lectorog]

Conducted by a legal government in accordance with the laws?

So was the Holocaust.

(Godwins law; in first)

I'm not sure that could be much less relevant to the topic at hand.

[Bauglir]

Gotcha, freeformschooler. Well, as a general rule, sure, I can accept that it's strictly harder to bully someone effectively over the internet than in meatspace, I just don't think that's a particularly meaningful statement in most discussions (although it is relevant if someone acts like the involvement of the Internet makes it even more heinous and frightening, which news outlets are wont to do, I suppose).

[Gunner-Chan]

The problem with that argument is it wasn't really relevant. Neither is the holocaust stuff by the way.

[a1s]

My argument is about Generic Person A who is cyberbullying Generic Person B.

Which ignores the core fact: there is no amount of of slander and personal attacks ("bullying") that would cause some well adjusted 40 year old to jump under a train- only emo teenagers and mentally ill people do that. And if B takes A's messages completely in stride, there is no issue to discuss.

[Bohandas]

The problem with that argument is it wasn't really relevant. Neither is the holocaust stuff by the way.

My point was that governments aren't automatically absolved of all wrongdoing simply by virtue of being governments.

[GlyphGryph]

I've got to be honest, cyberbullying (and other social harassment) is a FUCKTON harder to avoid on the internet than in real life. Especially on places like facebook where there is no anonymity because its an extension of your real life social network (usually). Your options are basically use facebook or don't use facebook. And even if you choose NOT to use facebook, your friends will, and if the guy is going around messaging all your friends about how much of a whore your dead daughter was, you're probably going to have trouble getting away from it.

If you meet someone in real-life who's an asshole, you just stay the hell away from them. If they hit you, big whoop, you get a little bruised, I don't think getting hit is usually enough to make someone kill themselves (and then you can charge them with assault, problem solved). And if they start following you around, showing up at your house, dropping messages off in your mailbox, interrupting dinners and movies out with friends... well, they get brought in for harassment. Especially if they are doing it solely to hurt you.

On the internet, we aren't so lucky. A sufficiently dedicated troll WILL find, will ruin your good name (even if its psudeonymous), and can make your online social life a living hell, and just the feeling of knowing someone is always going to be there waiting to hurt you, I can see how that would be incredibly damaging.

If you don't understand how a cyber-bully can push someone to suicide, I don't see how you believe its possible for anyone to ever be pushed to suicide by anyone. I'm making no comment on the legality thereof, but I don't see how it would work much different than it does in real life.

[Leafsnail]

My point was that governments aren't automatically absolved of all wrongdoing simply by virtue of being governments.

The thing is, you don't usually call it "bullying" if someone breaks the law (in this case, by harrassing someone) and the government promptly arrests them and gives them the maximum prison sentence for it (since it was clearly a very aggravated case).

I mean, maybe you have a problem with anti-harrassment laws?

[freeformschooler]

The problem with that argument is it wasn't really relevant. Neither is the holocaust stuff by the way.

Well, that's just the thing. It is slightly relevant because this is a topic partly about a suicide caused by long distance internet bullying, and the last several posts seemed to ignore the original point.

My argument:

IF Person A and Person B are being bullied
AND IF Person A is seperated from their offender by the internet, whilst Person B is not
AND The internet provides Person A larger amounts of defense from their offender
THEN It is less reasonable for Person A to commit suicide over their situation than Person B

That's why I had the original post. That's all I wanted to explain.

My argument is about Generic Person A who is cyberbullying Generic Person B.

Which ignores the core fact: there is no amount of of slander and personal attacks ("bullying") that would cause some well adjusted 40 year old to jump under a train- only emo teenagers and mentally ill people do that. And if B takes A's messages completely in stride, there is no issue to discuss.

As far as I can see, there is no way to logically convince anyone in a utilitarian manner than only emo teenagers and mentally ill people would respond to bullying, online or not, through suicide, so unless you provide a logical counterpoint, I don't see the relevance here to my original point.

[Bohandas]

I've got to be honest, cyberbullying (and other social harassment) is a FUCKTON harder to avoid on the internet than in real life. Especially on places like facebook where there is no anonymity because its an extension of your real life social network (usually). Your options are basically use facebook or don't use facebook.

I think that may be why I can't empathize with this; Because social networking sites are so alien to the way that I use the internet that I simply can't relate to it.