On so many different news items, threads, etc. People are the first to claim pretty much anyone who has made a mistake, or does something they disagree with deserves to die.
Like, do some people not have the capability to empathise and realise they might have been in a similar place if they were born in a different environment…
I genuinely understand, you think a politician who has lead to countless deaths, a war criminal, or a mass rapists deserves to die.
But here people say it for stuff that falls way below the bar.
A contracted logger of a rainforest (who knows if they have the money / opportunity to support their family another way). Deserves to die.
A civilian of Nazi germany of whom we know nothing about their collaboration/agreement with the regime. Deserves to die.
Some person who was a drug dealer and then served their time. Deserves to die.
Like I don’t get it? Are people not able to imagine the kind of situations that create these people, and that it’s not impossible to imagine the large majority of people in these positions if born in a different environment?
anonymity allows people to be not very nice
There’s a blast from the past.
2004
There is a pretty decent chance I saw that on the day it was posted. I feel old. 😔
You’re not nice! I wish you were dead!
same
Wait, you wish thouartfrugal were dead? Or you wish yourself were dead?
Phrasing left your statement vague.
I wouldnt wish death on someone else
That’s horribly unempathetic of you.
im sorry?
I just said how after a certain amount of time, people begin suffering if they live that long. We’ve never seen what happens if a person live to be 150 years old, but I assume it would be a level of suffering that people who are 105 haven’t even begun to experience, and never will.
You saying that people should live forever, just means they get about 90ish years of decent living, and then an eternity of suffering. I’m saying that everybody deserves to die.
I’m so glad we’re all on the same page, does this mean we should be friends now?
Hiding behind keyboard is easy.
Why should people be nice online when there are no tangible consequences to them being evil?
Because it isn’t just “nice” not to kill people for these things. It’s what you’d expect that large majority of people to think.
The majority of people probably do think that… but they don’t consider other internet denizens people.
Hard for me not to. I’m disabled to the point I’m unable to communicate in real life (lost ability to speak or hear), and am bedridden with limited mobility. So communicating via texting/phone is my only way.
I’m with you on the confusion because it’s like… I don’t feel the need to act this way, why do other people? What drives them that, in a void, they resort to these thoughts and behaviors? Is this who they really are, or is it an act, like doing an evil playthrough in a game. “I want to because I can here, and I can’t anywhere else?”
Really relate with your comment.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
-Gandalf the Grey / J R R Tolkein
Tolkien ftfy
This is a great quote and one I often remember, but I would also add this:
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death or to let live in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Live and let live works, but only if the other also does so. When one does not allow you to live as you want, because what they do harms you, then that ends there.
It’s the result of the “bombastic” mix of false dichotomy, assumptions, and social media dynamics.
False dichotomy prevents you from noticing nuances, complexities, third sides, or gradations. Under a false dichotomy, there’s no such thing as “Alice and Bob are bad, but Alice is worse than Bob”; no, either they’re equally bad (thus both deserve to die), or one of them is good.
In the meantime, assumptions prevent you from handling uncertainties, as the person “fills the blanks” of the missing info with whatever crap supports their conclusion. For example you don’t know if Bob kills puppies or not, but you do know that he jaywalks, right? So you assume that he kills puppies too, thus deserving death.
I’m from the firm belief that people who consistent and egregiously engage in discourse showing both things are muppets causing harm to society, and deserve to be treated as such. (Note: “consistent and egregiously” are key words here. A brainfart or two is fine, as long as there’s at least the attempt of handling additional bits of info and/or complexity.)
Then there are the social media dynamics. I feel like a lot of users here already addressed them really well, but to keep it short: social media gives undue exposure to idiots doing the above due to anonymity, detachment from the situation, self-reinforcing loops (“circlejerks”), so goes on.
“AOC slams Trump.”
They may as well be writing articles that say:
“Trump fucking body slams Biden.”
The rhetorical devices are out of control.
True that. And you reminded me a tidbit of human nature, that interferes in this situation:
If you mince words to make something look stronger, weaker, better, worse than it is, plenty people fall for it. Because they care too much about how something is said (the words) and too little about what is being said (the discourse).
What’s really crazy to me is that it’s not impossible to use a rhetorical device but still have it be rooted in reality. Like you can say “AOC doles out biting critique to GOP leadership” or something and it still allows the use of “biting” but is still living in the reality of that referring to a critique she made with words and ideas.
Possible? Yes. Desirable? No; at least, not for most news sources - the extreme sells better than the simply informative, and often this lack of precision is how they manipulate your views towards a certain subject.
I prefer “Trump fellates any and all authoritarian Heads of State. Emphasis on “head.””
That’s because you’re a textbook example of the infantile minds infecting areas where actual discourse has a chance to happen.
Life is cheap on the internet, because people feel far removed (and/or “above it”). Social media “engagement” algorithms divide and isolate people from each other.
(I think as far as Lemmy is concerned, it’s just spillover / remnant behaviors from that stuff. There’s no engagement algorithm here other than what we bring in ourselves.)
Here are a some studies on it from people a lot smarter than me. (Note these are more about general toxicity and hate speech and not zeroed in on your exact question, but they may be helpful).
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744614/full
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11547/10076
https://scholars.org/contribution/countering-online-toxicity-and-hate-speech
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-021-00787-4
This one looks at the “why” question from a political POV:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/11/pgad382/7405434?login=false
thanks, appreciate this answer
Honestly pretty frickin relevant
I’ve seen this one before, but the alt text had me in a (silent) laughing fit anyways.
We’ve been transitioning from a dignity culture to a victimhood/outrage culture for most of my adult life. The relevant one here is the outrage culture, where people are trying their damnedest to be the most outraged. Nothing shows that you are more are outraged by something than suggesting that someone should die for being in disagreement with you.
That’s because people are insane and unhinged, and love whipping themselves up into frenzies.
Tbh, they probably deserve to die.
Why are you so quick to say that?
Its a product of global connectivity but lack of in person connection. If I interact with someone regularly and personally I am unlikely to wish harm on them because they are “part of my tribe.” Via the internet and social media I dont really have a connection with this person, so its easy to think of them as an outsider or them. Once they are outside of my tribe I can remove their humanity and then their death has no moral or emotional cost to me.
As someone older than the public internet, these people and positions always existed. The difference in my opinion is that the 24-hour news cycle and online echo chambers combined with less in-person meeting, particularly with others in the community different to oneself has just further isolated and polarized people. There’s also an argument that heavily-biased cable “news” (which is oftentimes more “opinions” and sometimes “outright lies”) going unchecked has further polarized and divided people.
I’ve found that people on the internet generally have low empathy. If it’s not animal or child abuse, the responses are all over the place.
Part of it is that purity tests are at an all time high. In large part because we are constantly inundated with Content to reinforce our world views (or the world view of the Influencer we glommed on to) constantly. So anything different is not just cognitive dissonance: it is an attack on our very core and a lie. So if someone does something we wouldn’t do? They are the evilest of evil people and are knowingly hurting whoever we care about.
But the other aspect? The internet is a great place to meet people with different life experiences. And in a lot of cases (particularly with certain politicians), we and the people we love have been directly harmed by them. All that steven universe bullshit about needing to love everyone and always finding the good goes out the window when you are increasingly watching organizations try to murder you for embracing who you are and to enslave people and turn them into breeding stock.
And the last aspect is that lemmy has a really bad infestation of tankies. Tankies who, useful idiots or intentional, tend to actively argue for destabilizing The West and increasing conflicts. So advocating for terrorism and murder helps with that.
Appreciated your answers both on this thread and the soviet war crimes thread. Thank you.
I tend to block those users very, very quickly. At best, they’re “knee-jerk” types that react violently without thinking. At worst, they’re sociopaths. There’s a lot in between those, but either way, with them blocked, this place is way more chill.
that’s a good way to construct an echo chamber and not notice that you’re no longer the majority and now society has lowered the bar for murder to include you.
“If we block the people calling for death, they’ll kill us!” 😵
They look around and only see support so they must be right .
Because ignoring problems has worked so well in the past …
While i agree with your sentiment it really depends on the user. While you may be open to calling out bullshit violent users, perhaps this user has no intention to do the same and would prefer a more chill virtual environment
Yep. Plus, people spewing violent bullshit aren’t going to be deterred by a counter keyboard warrior. So I just let them shout their shit into the void (as far as I’m aware of it, anyway).
I’ve got enough stress IRL I don’t need that shit here.
And allowing all of these people unchecked in your discourse allows them to keep going and gain steam. If more people blocked psychos maybe they’d shut up when they realise no one is listening
In my local city subreddit yesterday, something like this happened.
Up until last year, high speed police chases were illegal in my state because of the increased chances of deadly accidents with uninvolved innocent citizens.
A few days ago, the first deadly accident from a police high speed chase happened.
After the cops laid down spike strips and ruined her tires, she kept driving, and eventually plowed into someone, killing them.
To me, seeing that it all started because she’s a drug addict looking for fentanyl, I don’t see it as her doing this on purpose, but it being split between her and the cops. She could have stopped, but the cops could have also chosen to not exacerbate the situation with hot pursuit and shredding her tires.
The people in the thread were comparing her to mass shooters and demanding she be in jail until she’s dead. They even pulled the FOX News and dug up her entire criminal history to show how evil she was. I get it, she fucked up and killed someone, but I would personally still call it manslaughter, not murder, since she clearly wasn’t trying to kill people, she was just trying to escape cops.
This is in a so-called progressive city deep in the US northwest.
Anonymity and group think are serious fucking drugs here - a lot of people struggle with empathy normally but even more fail to empathize across the internet. We’re all fucking people at the end of the day but some folks struggle to see other usernames as anything but “the other”.
Additionally this thread + comment system rewards extremism and controversy over reason and nuance - its much faster to absorb a comment of someone dunking on someone else than reading a well thought out of comment… the highest votes tend to go to shorter simpler statements.
Violence is inherently simple and easy to comprehend - it’s extreme and edgy - and it’s something a lot of us constantly see on these devices when playing video games. A lot of people who espouse it on the internet don’t mentally equate advocacy for violence with actual physical violence or can’t really comprehend what actual physical violence looks and feels like.
Oh, also, memes.
