4 ms·

The most recent online mob I can think of was started by a guy named Jeremy, attacking a girl for wearing a Chinese dress as "cultural appropriation". He didn't

by gaius 8y ago

The most recent online mob I can think of was started by a guy named Jeremy, attacking a girl for wearing a Chinese dress as "cultural appropriation". He didn't want anonymity; he revelled in being known as the instigator, even giving interviews to the press. So I don't think that anonymity is the real root cause of online mobbing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43947959 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-43947959 Jeremy by the way is an English name of Biblical origin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(name) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_(name)

weberc2 8y ago
I’m curious about why this is being downvoted. It seems relevant afaict.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  Because taking it seriously and arguing with propaganda only legitimizes it. And I'm pretty sure people didn't come here because they think there might be a legitimate reason to restrict and police people online.
  - vntok 8y ago
    Please don't generalise. I do think there are legitimate reasons to restrict and police people online and I'm certainly not alone. Who ever is?
  - yorwba 8y ago
    Huh? I don't read the GP as advocating for restricting anyone online, even less as propaganda. Did they edit their comment? FWIW, I do support restricting people's ability to communicate online, in particular their ability to spam me. I'm not talking about global censorship, just me personally, and if someone actually likes spam, then they can enjoy it for all I care.
matt4077 8y ago
One guy willing to attach their name to their mobbing doesn't disprove the almost tautological idea that fewer people would participate in such mobbing if they were all forced to do so with their real identity. That's because right now both that wish to be anonymous and those that don't get to participate, whereas such rules would exclude the former group. Even the event you mention probably depended on many being able to participate without risk, since one guy alone doesn't make for a very convincing 'mob'. There are arguments for anonymity online, and I tend to agree that they outweigh the problems. I think it'd be strategically better to focus on these than try to attack the rather intuitive logic at the core of such calls for ending anonymity.
- toyg 8y ago
  > fewer people would participate in such mobbing if they were all forced to do so with their real identity. I disagree. Mobbing existed before anonymity; in fact, it was very much the norm -- the concept of "honor" is often tied to public displays of condemnation for the "dishonorable". Publicity makes it harder for people to disagree with what is perceived as the opinion of the majority, as unpalatable and uncivilized as it might be. This is why political votes are secret, among others; or why the Gospels explicitly warn against public displays of faith. Every group of people will have its "dishonorable" enemies, and will always be keen to publicly shame them. Forcing people to attach their public identities to online activity will do nothing to dissuade people who see such actions as a badge of honor, but it will chill the display of dissent from the status quo.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Not sure this is true though. Mobs existed before because there were so many people that you were effectively an anonymous member of it. Similar to behaviour in protests today. However removing anonymity today would be difference since everyone could see your name and could get you fired, killed etc. Hence the OP is right that you would see less mobs.
    - toyg 8y ago
      No, the mass dimension is a modern phenomenon. "Mobs" in the past were 20 villagers doing things like burning a witch at the stakes. Everyone knew everyone else, and nobody would speak out for the witch precisely because their identity and reputation would have suffered from it. Removing anonymity will just reduce the possibility to express a dissenting opinion. This is why authoritarian systems the world over have always loved ID cards and the likes.
cpmouter 8y ago
Do we really care about the kind of people who care about "cultural appropriation"? Just don't pay attention to them. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Just_Don%27t_Look#Lyrics http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Just_Don%27t_Look#Lyrics The same can be said about many, many other "online mobs".
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > Do we really care about the kind of people who care about "cultural appropriation"? Yes, because not disagreeing is considered assent. Telling people with stupid ideologies that their ideologies are stupid is not something you want to avoid entirely, at the very least to remind folks that they haven't found the One True Ideology. Whether the ideology in question is SJWs/ctrl-left or alt-right... doesn't really matter. Neither of those should dominate the public or wield governmental powers. And to avoid precisely that from happening, you speak out against it.
  - marcus_holmes 8y ago
    Isn't that just feeding the trolls though?
    - Viliam1234 8y ago
      Coordinating "not feeding trolls" on a large scale is very difficult. Also, it is difficult to ignore people who can attack you offline. I think these fanatical students (seems to me they are usually students; students are most susceptible to recruitment in all kinds of cults) constitute pretty much zero danger to me... but they can be quite dangerous to their classmates, so if I had children in university age, I would probably worry a lot. If you told me that when I eat pizza that it is a cultural appropriation, I would just tell you to f.off. But when a student is surrounded by militant classmates, this can lead to bullying. And even worse, when a teacher is a part of some social justice cult. So... not feeding the trolls is sometimes not an option, unless you want to give up on your diploma, and the time and work spent so far studying. Not feeding trolls also assumes that people are mature enough to recognize who is a troll. But there is a continuum between people who sincerely believe that political correctness is simply the usual politeness applied to politically sensitive topics... and people who throw a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with their latest pseudoscience. Try to make a line somewhere, and people who are under the line but quite close to it are going to object.
perl4ever 8y ago
Among the more surreal aspects of UK culture that I am aware of (only because of the Internet) are prejudice against people named "Jeremy", and "gingers" (not that there is any connection between the two).
- gaius 8y ago
  I’m not aware of any particular Jeremy prejudice, I just thing it’s strange that a guy with an English/Hebrew name feels entitled to claim exclusive ownership of Chinese culture. Anyone can wear anything or be called anything in my book.

by gaius 8y ago

weberc2 8y ago

I’m curious about why this is being downvoted. It seems relevant afaict.

zzzcpan 8y ago
Because taking it seriously and arguing with propaganda only legitimizes it. And I'm pretty sure people didn't come here because they think there might be a legitimate reason to restrict and police people online.
- vntok 8y ago
  Please don't generalise. I do think there are legitimate reasons to restrict and police people online and I'm certainly not alone. Who ever is?
- yorwba 8y ago
  Huh? I don't read the GP as advocating for restricting anyone online, even less as propaganda. Did they edit their comment? FWIW, I do support restricting people's ability to communicate online, in particular their ability to spam me. I'm not talking about global censorship, just me personally, and if someone actually likes spam, then they can enjoy it for all I care.

matt4077 8y ago

One guy willing to attach their name to their mobbing doesn't disprove the almost tautological idea that fewer people would participate in such mobbing if they were all forced to do so with their real identity. That's because right now both that wish to be anonymous and those that don't get to participate, whereas such rules would exclude the former group. Even the event you mention probably depended on many being able to participate without risk, since one guy alone doesn't make for a very convincing 'mob'. There are arguments for anonymity online, and I tend to agree that they outweigh the problems. I think it'd be strategically better to focus on these than try to attack the rather intuitive logic at the core of such calls for ending anonymity.

toyg 8y ago
> fewer people would participate in such mobbing if they were all forced to do so with their real identity. I disagree. Mobbing existed before anonymity; in fact, it was very much the norm -- the concept of "honor" is often tied to public displays of condemnation for the "dishonorable". Publicity makes it harder for people to disagree with what is perceived as the opinion of the majority, as unpalatable and uncivilized as it might be. This is why political votes are secret, among others; or why the Gospels explicitly warn against public displays of faith. Every group of people will have its "dishonorable" enemies, and will always be keen to publicly shame them. Forcing people to attach their public identities to online activity will do nothing to dissuade people who see such actions as a badge of honor, but it will chill the display of dissent from the status quo.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Not sure this is true though. Mobs existed before because there were so many people that you were effectively an anonymous member of it. Similar to behaviour in protests today. However removing anonymity today would be difference since everyone could see your name and could get you fired, killed etc. Hence the OP is right that you would see less mobs.
  - toyg 8y ago
    No, the mass dimension is a modern phenomenon. "Mobs" in the past were 20 villagers doing things like burning a witch at the stakes. Everyone knew everyone else, and nobody would speak out for the witch precisely because their identity and reputation would have suffered from it. Removing anonymity will just reduce the possibility to express a dissenting opinion. This is why authoritarian systems the world over have always loved ID cards and the likes.

cpmouter 8y ago

Do we really care about the kind of people who care about "cultural appropriation"? Just don't pay attention to them. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Just_Don%27t_Look#Lyrics http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Just_Don%27t_Look#Lyrics The same can be said about many, many other "online mobs".

blattimwind 8y ago
> Do we really care about the kind of people who care about "cultural appropriation"? Yes, because not disagreeing is considered assent. Telling people with stupid ideologies that their ideologies are stupid is not something you want to avoid entirely, at the very least to remind folks that they haven't found the One True Ideology. Whether the ideology in question is SJWs/ctrl-left or alt-right... doesn't really matter. Neither of those should dominate the public or wield governmental powers. And to avoid precisely that from happening, you speak out against it.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  Isn't that just feeding the trolls though?
  - Viliam1234 8y ago
    Coordinating "not feeding trolls" on a large scale is very difficult. Also, it is difficult to ignore people who can attack you offline. I think these fanatical students (seems to me they are usually students; students are most susceptible to recruitment in all kinds of cults) constitute pretty much zero danger to me... but they can be quite dangerous to their classmates, so if I had children in university age, I would probably worry a lot. If you told me that when I eat pizza that it is a cultural appropriation, I would just tell you to f.off. But when a student is surrounded by militant classmates, this can lead to bullying. And even worse, when a teacher is a part of some social justice cult. So... not feeding the trolls is sometimes not an option, unless you want to give up on your diploma, and the time and work spent so far studying. Not feeding trolls also assumes that people are mature enough to recognize who is a troll. But there is a continuum between people who sincerely believe that political correctness is simply the usual politeness applied to politically sensitive topics... and people who throw a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with their latest pseudoscience. Try to make a line somewhere, and people who are under the line but quite close to it are going to object.

perl4ever 8y ago

Among the more surreal aspects of UK culture that I am aware of (only because of the Internet) are prejudice against people named "Jeremy", and "gingers" (not that there is any connection between the two).

gaius 8y ago
I’m not aware of any particular Jeremy prejudice, I just thing it’s strange that a guy with an English/Hebrew name feels entitled to claim exclusive ownership of Chinese culture. Anyone can wear anything or be called anything in my book.