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 might be analogous to driving on a highway or city streets. I've often heard that when people are behind the wheel of a car, more of their inner personality starts to come out. It's different if we're talking to someone in person, as we might put out the glad hand or show a more friendly "front." But anonymous strangers in cars are a different matter. They're easier to dismiss since you'll likely never see them again, and they won't know who you are either.
It might be similar on the internet, where people are anonymous and can let their inner personality and character come out.
When I first got online and started interacting with different personality types, it struck me that I was conversing with people whom I probably never would have met or had much to do with in real life. In real life, I would socialize and converse with people who had similar interests, backgrounds, and personality types within my own regional sub-culture.
If I came across someone who seemed loud, boisterous, obnoxious, rude, irritating, or otherwise unpleasant or incompatible with my personality type, I probably wouldn't spend much time conversing with such a person. And usually, you can figure that out pretty quickly when dealing with someone face to face. (And if it's someone from Arizona, then I can generally understand where they're coming from much more easily than if they're from somewhere else.)
It's not as easy to pick up on these various nuances when dealing with someone online.
I don't know if "condemn" is the word I would use to describe it. On the internet, I find that I converse with people over topics I wouldn't ordinarily spend much time discussing with others I know in real life, except for a few close friends. If I got into an argument with someone in real life, I might try to work it out with the person (if it was someone I cared about) or I might just say "screw it" and walk away. But I wouldn't spend that much time arguing back and forth. I wouldn't necessarily condemn anyone, but I might be inclined to dismiss them or simply avoid them. (Although I might be more forgiving if I could tell if someone was drunk or perhaps not quite right in the head, but again, that's not always that easy to tell over the internet.)
It does sometimes seem absurd whenever there are flame wars over the internet. Arguments and insults abound, but what's funny is whenever one or both parties are trying to demean and denigrate their opposition by suggesting that they're possibly mentally ill, unstable, living in their mother's basement - basically a worthless individual with no life.
The ironic thing about that is, if they really believe that they're arguing with a crazy person, then why are they arguing with a crazy person? This is oftentimes
after the "condemnation" has taken place, and yet, they're still endlessly arguing with someone they've already condemned as being stupid, insane, and/or worthless. Do people do that in real life? Would anyone see a PhD from Harvard arguing on the street with a lunatic living in a cardboard box? Probably not. But we see it on the internet all the time.
It does seem rather strange at times.
As for condemnation, this is how it usually goes:
Matthias: You are discarded. You are the refuse of the past.
Neville: You are full of crap!
