|
|
|
|
|
by hyperion2010
4116 days ago
|
|
It always boggles my mind that people would rather not see the true nature and thoughts of their community than actually address the underlying social environment that makes those thoughts acceptable to air. Further I find it worrying that people's response is to want to hunt down and punish individual people for airing thoughts when on YY it is clear that the only way they stay visible is because a GROUP of people actively agrees with them. Don't you WANT to know that there are biggots out there so you can actually address the problem!??! Ostriches, ostriches everywhere. |
|
Being offensive towards somebody, in isolation, is "normal", but in the context of a group of peers, imitation can fuel a chain reaction, which turns individual offense to group aggression. Obviously we're talking about verbal aggression, but when somebody writes about gang rape, then it's serious business even if it's not real.
There is a significant difference between "airing thoughts" and cyberbullying.
Those are not necessarily "agreed thoughts"; in the context, they can be seen as "lack" of thought, that is, groupthink of people who has little to do with their minds in a certain moment.
Selling a gun is one thing. Putting a gun in a public place with a sign with written "use me" is a very different thing. In the same way, internet comments are already used to channel anger because of their anonymity; if a medium adds groupthink and proximity to anonymity, things develop on a different level.