Are We Quicker to Condemn People on the Internet than in Real Life?

[Sunstone]

In general, do you think people on the internet are more likely to wholly condemn others for one or two flaws than people offline?

I believe I have noticed over the years I've been online that condemning people -- not merely criticizing, but condemning them -- on the basis of one or a few flaws is something almost to be expected on the internet, and yet is comparatively rare offline (perhaps with the exception of politicians, celebrities, and strangers).

At any rate, if such be the case, I think it's something we should think about because it is dehumanizing to expect people to be perfect.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In general, do you think people on the internet are more likely to wholly condemn others for one or two flaws than people offline?

I believe I have noticed over the years I've been online that condemning people -- not merely criticizing, but condemning them -- on the basis of one or a few flaws is something almost to be expected on the internet, and yet is comparatively rare offline (perhaps with the exception of politicians, celebrities, and strangers).

At any rate, if such be the case, I think it's something we should think about because it is dehumanizing to expect people to be perfect.

It is more common. Your example about celebrities is interesting though. Maybe it's a more general point about condemning those we see as two-dimensional?

 

[Sunstone]

It is more common. Your example about celebrities is interesting though. Maybe it's a more general point about condemning those we see as two-dimensional?

People who generally speaking don't talk ideas often enough talk ideas using celebrities as concrete examples of the ideas they're talking about. So, for instance, rather than discuss adoption or abortion in the abstract, they discuss celebrity X's adoption, and celebrity Y's abortion. But using celebrities as stand-ins for ideas can sometimes lead to reducing them to ideas - to making them two-dimensional, as you say.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

People who generally speaking don't talk ideas often enough talk ideas using celebrities as concrete examples of the ideas they're talking about. So, for instance, rather than discuss adoption or abortion in the abstract, they discuss celebrity X's adoption, and celebrity Y's abortion. But using celebrities as stand-ins for ideas can sometimes lead to reducing them to ideas - to making them two-dimensional, as you say.

Hmm..interesting.
There is also the chicken and egg factor, right? Do we speak about celebrities the way we do because we see them as 2D, or do we start seeing them as 2D because of how we speak about them?
Does this self-perpetuate?

Regardless, in my advancing years I have grown less judgemental, if also a little harder, which surprises me in terms of a tightrope to tread.

 

[sun rise]

The less human contact we have, the more likely we are to condemn. Sitting next to someone, it would be extremely rare to see what we see online.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

In general, do you think people on the internet are more likely to wholly condemn others for one or two flaws than people offline?

I believe I have noticed over the years I've been online that condemning people -- not merely criticizing, but condemning them -- on the basis of one or a few flaws is something almost to be expected on the internet, and yet is comparatively rare offline (perhaps with the exception of politicians, celebrities, and strangers).

At any rate, if such be the case, I think it's something we should think about because it is dehumanizing to expect people to be perfect.

I think you're right to an extent, but these arguments can be frustrating and so people may be more apt to condemn someone for an obvious flaw online. If you've tried to give someone a lot of evidence to back up your claim and the other person just spits on your evidence or otherwise doesn't heed it, it can be frustrating and so tempers flare and strong words flow.

We've all got our flaws, I'm certainly not perfect, and I don't expect other people to be, but the topic of religion is an emotional one and the internetz affords people a level of anonymity and safety from repercussions that doing/saying something in person doesn't give.

I certainly wouldn't walk into a church in Alabama and proclaim Yahweh an idiotic god...

 

[Sunstone]

I think you're right to an extent, but these arguments can be frustrating and so people may be more apt to condemn someone for an obvious flaw online. If you've tried to give someone a lot of evidence to back up your claim and the other person just spits on your evidence or otherwise doesn't heed it, it can be frustrating and so tempers flare and strong words flow.

We've all got our flaws, I'm certainly not perfect, and I don't expect other people to be, but the topic of religion is an emotional one and the internetz affords people a level of anonymity and safety from repercussions that doing/saying something in person doesn't give.

I certainly wouldn't walk into a church in Alabama and proclaim Yahweh an idiotic god...

Do you think the internet helps people see each other one-dimensionally? I mean, on the net, you easily can know very little about the person you're debating -- other than they have an absurd opinion about X or are wholly unreasonable about Y. Can that have an effect on how ready one might be to condemn them?

 

[Flame]

There is also the benefit of online anonymity; no worrying that you'll be slugged for your comments.

 

[Sunstone]

Regardless, in my advancing years I have grown less judgemental...

Less judgmental, but harder. That's fascinating. Could you elaborate, please?

I've found myself becoming less judgmental and more tolerant. However, I do still have my moments, especially with that insufferable @Terese and her uppity backtalk! It doesn't at all help that she's so witty at it, either!

 

[Axe Elf]

I think it's the opposite for me. I judge people by sight first--how they look, how they act--long before I hear them attempt to establish an rational argument. If their pants are sagging, or they just sped up in the outside line only to cut me off and then go slower than me in MY lane, I wouldn't even be interested in hearing them try--they're just condemned.

Online, I tend to give people more of a benefit of the doubt. I mean, they're on a forum, so they can read, and are choosing to do something that has to do with words, rather than posting selfies or surfing porn, so there's at least the potential to be able to form rational arguments there, and I guess I assume it until they say something like:

1. God said we would be hated for telling the truth.
2. I am hated.
3. Therefore, I must be telling the truth.

And then they're condemned. But getting to that point in real life is usually a longer journey--and a more likely outcome,

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's the opposite for me. I judge people by sight first--how they look, how they act--long before I hear them attempt to establish an rational argument. If their pants are sagging, or they just sped up in the outside line only to cut me off and then go slower than me in MY lane, I wouldn't even be interested in hearing them try--they're just condemned.

Online, I tend to give people more of a benefit of the doubt. I mean, they're on a forum, so they can read, and are choosing to do something that has to do with words, rather than posting selfies or surfing porn, so there's at least the potential to be able to form rational arguments there, and I guess I assume it until they say something like:

1. God said we would be hated for telling the truth.
2. I am hated.
3. Therefore, I must be telling the truth.

And then they're condemned. But getting to that point in real life is usually a longer journey--and a more likely outcome,

Do you think condemning someone for an irrational argument is fair to that person, and to all they have done in their lives? Remember, we are talking about condemning people here, not merely criticizing them, but condemning them.

 

[Thief]

In general, do you think people on the internet are more likely to wholly condemn others for one or two flaws than people offline?

I believe I have noticed over the years I've been online that condemning people -- not merely criticizing, but condemning them -- on the basis of one or a few flaws is something almost to be expected on the internet, and yet is comparatively rare offline (perhaps with the exception of politicians, celebrities, and strangers).

At any rate, if such be the case, I think it's something we should think about because it is dehumanizing to expect people to be perfect.

two questions.....

condemnation?......as all the way to hell
and to be perfect is dehumanizing?

let me knee jerk.....it is written
BE thou perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect

seems a bit of a stretch....but there it is
I don't expect my efforts to win the ribbon
still....I try

but if I fail.....and it is written....
break even the least of the law....and you have broken all of them

then hell is waiting

 

[Thief]

Regardless, in my advancing years I have grown less judgemental, if also a little harder, which surprises me in terms of a tightrope to tread.

seeds of a thread
go for it

 

[Sunstone]

...to be perfect is dehumanizing?

In this context, expecting someone to be perfect means judging them as wholly wanting because they failed to measure up to your or to someone's standards in one or a few things, while ignoring all else they might have done or said. You don't find that dehumanizing?

 

[Thief]

In this context, expecting someone to be perfect means judging them as wholly wanting because they failed to measure up to your or to someone's standards in one or a few things, while ignoring all else they might have done or said. You don't find that dehumanizing?

it seems human to distract of my fails by pointing to yours.....

I see this tactic in every level of our endeavors
especially where I work

omg

 

[Axe Elf]

Do you think condemning someone for an irrational argument is fair to that person, and to all they have done in their lives? Remember, we are talking about condemning people here, not merely criticizing them, but condemning them.

Well if you're asking if I would send them to hell for it, no. I just thought you meant "condemn" in the normal sense of judging a person to be not worth your time. But I do mean it to be stronger than mere criticism. If I invest in constructive criticism, it's because I believe the person has the capacity to benefit from it. Once I'm shown that they are not, then I would no longer criticize them; they would be condemned for their inability to think rationally.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Do you think the internet helps people see each other one-dimensionally? I mean, on the net, you easily can know very little about the person you're debating -- other than they have an absurd opinion about X or are wholly unreasonable about Y. Can that have an effect on how ready one might be to condemn them?

I think it depends... If someone says they are a Christian, I can know quite a bit about them and what they believe. The Nicene Creed is a good place to start for figuring it out since it's the core creed of Christianity. I also know what the bible says throughout it so can have a good idea what they believe. Of course, every Christian is different, but you get my drift.

I can't know more than that without further inquiry, but I don't know that I'd say I only know them one dimensionally.

I can condemn them as deluded based on their unwavering belief in their religion in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it isn't divinely inspired...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Less judgmental, but harder. That's fascinating. Could you elaborate, please?

I've found myself becoming less judgmental and more tolerant. However, I do still have my moments, especially with that insufferable @Terese and her uppity backtalk! It doesn't at all help that she's so witty at it, either!

At the risk of sidetracking the thread, sure. Note, this is kinda rambly, and I could give examples in different spheres (work/family/etc). But let's run with this to start...

This is all incremental, but I was a fairly naieve boy when I went to Uni. One of those kids everyone said was mature, but in truth I knew very little about the world. Just how to act, I guess. I came from a working class background, but had a stable home life. I wasn't an immigrant, a woman, an aboriginal, directly effected by drugs. I was 'normal' (Hah!! Seems a weird concept now) and felt sorry for those less fortunate than me, whilst also figured there were lucky people born to wealth who didn't have it as tough as me.

Over time I became a little harder than my left-leaning Uni self. Politically I slid more to the centre, as I had more to lose, and had worked my way up economically. Pretty cliche, but there's a reason for that.

I also saw true poverty in a global (rather than first world) sense, and saw situations where people had no support or chance to improve themselves. That's confronting and tough to deal with. I also realised real whether I was sorry or not mattered little, apart from at a very low/personal level, and even then less than we'd care to believe.

That's not as much the case in Australia, so in some ways I became harder when I came home. It's difficult to see homelessness here (for example), realise that many people have options and are choosing homelessness (is how I saw it), and not feel a little jaded at the large amount of tax going to welfare.

Personally, I think our society doesn't do anywhere near enough to help people improve their own situation. Free education seems a worthwhile investment that would meaningfully help kids in poor socio-economic situations, as would school breakfast programs, cheaper child care, etc. Straight out welfare is a more neccessary evil than good thing.

Regardless, somewhere along the line I stopped connecting the individual in front of me with the pattern or stereotype in general.

After all, I'm a white, middle class male who wears a suit, travels for work, like sports and beer. I know darn well I'm not typical, but from a distance I'd sure appear to be.

So that homeless person? I know nothing of their tale, and I know more than enough real stories now to know they run the full gamut. Drug addiction can be both cause and symptom. Mental illness. Abuse by others. Abuse by self.

Who am I to judge? Have I walked a mile? Heck, a metre?
At the same time, feeling sorry for that person, or even handing them $20...is there a point? Am I trying to assuage guilt? Where does that come from?

Now I just give money to groups I think can better allocate and use it rather than the person before me. Some would see that as dodging responsibility, and to an extent that's true. But the hardness comes from me not caring about appearances. There is a pragmatism I didn't have in my youth, even whilst I am much more tolerant and open-minded about differences.

Hmmm...that's a start. Feel free to ask away, though. It's somewhat cathartic.

 

[Thief]

hmmmm.....do I condemn my fellowman?

yes I do

not so much as sending them all the way to hell
I stand back from that declaration as it's not mine to give

but do I call my fellowman a bobble head?......yes I do
suck up and boot licker?......yes he is
immature and grade school material?......he sure is

 

[Sunstone]

I just thought you meant "condemn" in the normal sense of judging a person to be not worth your time.

No, as I tried to make clear in the OP, I'm talking of "condemning" someone in the sense of "wholly condemning" them -- not just criticizing some aspect of them.