Yes but it shouldn't be illegal. The right to express an opinion must always come first. If we got into banning opinions because they upset someone there would be very little things we would still be allowed to say.
Have you ever wondered why Twitter, with running costs far exceeding its revenue and with limited actual revenue opportunities has managed to continue for so long?
It is funded and supported by the very people who wish to enforce the agenda you outline above.
I'll apply the same standards whether I'm posting on DS or on the killerconspiracycamsluts.com forums. I make that decision because I hold myself to the same standard regardless of environment.
If other people choose to adopt different different standards depending on the environment, that's great.
But just don't deny that it does require a double-standard.
Well I would feel less comfortable on killerconspiracycamsluts.com and therefore move on to a place that had people I find it more interesting holding discussions with rather than spend time trying to persuade them that the world isn't conspiring against them.
You're completely wrong about the whole "If you don't like it, leave" thing too.
As has been said, that attitude fails to consider that a person's reputation can be damaged and others can be incited to take more direct action against that person regardless of whether they actually read what's being said about them or not.
I don't believe in proactively silencing people because others might do unless it is direct incitement. Libel deals with reputational damage trying more of the same or "shaming" is medieval (and not in a good way)
Surely if those views are sincerely held they wouldn't care about anonymity and if those views were not sincerely held it'd make them a troll taking advantage of anonymity?
Do you post stuff on the internet that you wouldn't want family members or a prospective employer to see?
I don't.
Hah! Great question. Some people do regularly post their bigotry, e.g. about a particular religion, presumably because they feel safe to do so in the bubble of anonymity afforded by the username. Their views are blindingly obvious but they either assume people on the internet don't see them for what they are or they don't care because online readers can't attach their real name to their bigotry. I expect some in their work or personal lives wouldn't think well of them if they knew about it.
In my ideal world - yes. I think a lot of the nastier stuff on the internet is populated by people believing they are anonymous and if they lost this perception that most of it would disappear.
I'm not saying it's possible, or even without drawbacks, but it would make everyone a little less confrontational.
I would find it incredibly strange seeing my real name where my username is on here. My username feels like my real internet name. I've been using this username for about 9 years now. I would not like using my real name online where it can be seen by people that I don't trust.
I mean, what's the message there? If you're unstable (or claim to be) you get a free pass to spout any vindictive bile you like?
Besides, try that yourself the next time you're in a debate here.
Tell somebody that you're going to cut yourself if people continue to disagree with you and see what happens.
It seems a little hypocritical to hold others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to.
Thing is, it's not even like she was just resentful of the McCann parents.
She claimed the moral high ground by asserting that she was speaking out on behalf of a poor child who'd never received justice.
Surely nobody with such an allegedly burning, noble, passion would make such a dramatic U-turn when faced with an opportunity for public exposure?
I'm thinking that the whole "justice for a murdered child" angle was simply an excuse to spout venom and hatred about anybody who failed to live up to her expectations.
*EDIT*
Scrolling through the list of her tweets, there's some lovely stuff in there about Gordon Brown.
There was some really bizarre and shocking material there about Brown - which I won't repeat - and Blair too. I noticed too the use of the name Maddie, for the child. Surely that's for the parents and family only, not for strangers who don't know her or the family.
Using a once-topical thread as a "chatter" thread because the main topic of conversation has long since left the room as it were is one thing, but I think we both know which input I am talking about, and I'm sorry, but that level of repetitive, continued fixation is not healthy behaviour. It makes me wonder if woman in the news was of a similar kind of mindset.
If you think it's a sign of being unwell to post updates - I might say it was an example of perhaps extreme devotion or fandom - what would you say of the couple of people in a Hello thread on the BB forum who post to each other day after day after day after day only to say Good morning, the weather is good, bad or whatever it may be? Nothing else...what is that about and are they unwell or have they some sort of hidden purpose? Because I can't fathom that at all.
If you think it's a sign of being unwell to post updates - I might say it was an example of perhaps extreme devotion or fandom - what would you say of the couple of people in a Hello thread on the BB forum who post to each other day after day after day after day only to say Good morning, the weather is good, bad or whatever it may be? Nothing else...what is that about and are they unwell or have they some sort of hidden purpose? Because I can't fathom that at all.
Unwell and lonely, I would guess. There's an example of it rather nearer at hand, too.
If you think it's a sign of being unwell to post updates - I might say it was an example of perhaps extreme devotion or fandom - what would you say of the couple of people in a Hello thread on the BB forum who post to each other day after day after day after day only to say Good morning, the weather is good, bad or whatever it may be? Nothing else...what is that about and are they unwell or have they some sort of hidden purpose? Because I can't fathom that at all.
It's the nature of the updates that makes me wonder what it's all about. It's basically one poster talking to themselves with the same couple of phrases, or updating with "nothing to report" every few hours.
If you think it's a sign of being unwell to post updates - I might say it was an example of perhaps extreme devotion or fandom - what would you say of the couple of people in a Hello thread on the BB forum who post to each other day after day after day after day only to say Good morning, the weather is good, bad or whatever it may be? Nothing else...what is that about and are they unwell or have they some sort of hidden purpose? Because I can't fathom that at all.
Be nicer. :( The person you are making fun of posts plenty of stuff in other threads as well. He obviously just likes to keep an otherwise dying, but long-standing thread going, and it seems perfectly harmless.
It's bizarre isn't it - all of the post are completely off topic and the thread should be closed really!
Really? All the posts are off topic, or is that just another dig at a specific forum poster, as with the "try the top of the page" piece?
I think this thread has been very much on topic, with people discussing whether:
Anonymous posting contributes to the amount of bile split online.
Whether it actually has any impact if someone is posting to twitter, other sites or apps or to anywhere.
What it says about the people who do this.
Whether it's right for those people to be exposed.
Other related topics too, and all without going into the contentious subject matter of a specific person's attitude to other specific people. Seems like a good discussion to me.
It's the nature of the updates that makes me wonder what it's all about. It's basically one poster talking to themselves with the same couple of phrases, or updating with "nothing to report" every few hours.
It's very sad really.
I've never looked in that thread before
Just took a peek ......................it actually made me chuckle a bit {{{{ bless}}}
Be nicer. :( The person you are making fun of posts plenty of stuff in other threads as well. He obviously just likes to keep an otherwise dying, but long-standing thread going, and it seems perfectly harmless.
Give over. I'm not making fun of anyone and I don't even know which out of two people you are referring to as he. You don't know them either for that matter or who or what is harmless or otherwise or who anybody on the internet actually is.
I noticed too the use of the name Maddie, for the child. Surely that's for the parents and family only, not for strangers who don't know her or the family.
I noticed that in that article in the Independent (linked to earlier in this thread), the journalist mentions "Jamie Bulger". And his family didn't even call him Jamie.
There is an appreciation thread in that Big Brother forum that seems to be perpetuated so that one poster in particular can continue to talk to herself parrot fashion and post nothing else but updates about two contestants who were a couple in the show but split over three years ago. That sort of fixated obsession is a clear indicator that some people online are perhaps unwell.
As somebody who used to post on the thread to which you refer, rather obsessively back in the day when it was extremely active, I think it's unfair to slate somebody for posting twice a day (if you look at the timings of the posts) on a thread that gives them some comfort. Sure, it's odd to still be obsessed over those two this long since they split, but believe me there is still a lot of rivalry going on between those two - their respective fans that is - just not on here anymore (thank heavens). Still people talking about them as if they were the greatest living couple ever too I've seen the obsession some people have regarding Katie Price and Peter Andre, who divorced a long time ago!
What's important to focus on is the good that came from that thread, friendships they have made, and retain to this day (online and off), due to the ...erm... obsession over those two contestants. I met my best friend through that particular thread myself!
At the end of the day, who is it harming? They aren't being abusive, defamatory or in any way insulting about either of the two, or anybody else for that matter.
I noticed that in that article in the Independent (linked to earlier in this thread), the journalist mentions "Jamie Bulger". And his family didn't even call him Jamie.
I notice that others don't call him that, in my head he's always been Jamie Bulger.
As somebody who used to post on the thread to which you refer, rather obsessively back in the day when it was extremely active, I think it's unfair to slate somebody for posting twice a day (if you look at the timings of the posts) on a thread that gives them some comfort. Sure, it's odd to still be obsessed over those two this long since they split, but believe me there is still a lot of rivalry going on between those two - their respective fans that is - just not on here anymore (thank heavens). Still people talking about them as if they were the greatest living couple ever too I've seen the obsession some people have regarding Katie Price and Peter Andre, who divorced a long time ago!
What's important to focus on is the good that came from that thread, friendships they have made, and retain to this day (online and off), due to the ...erm... obsession over those two contestants. I met my best friend through that particular thread myself!
At the end of the day, who is it harming? They aren't being abusive, defamatory or in any way insulting about either of the two, or anybody else for that matter.
Sorry, I wasn't particularly trying to be disparaging. I just find that particular level of obsession a bit sad, not in the insulting sense, but in the literal sense of feeling sad for somebody who has been left virtually alone to talk to themselves and post updates about a couple from a TV show years ago who have long since split, and who nobody really cares about.
Whilst I agree that the poster(s) in the thread here are relatively harmless, it does seem to highlight the strange fixations of some people online.
Well I would feel less comfortable on killerconspiracycamsluts.com and therefore move on to a place that had people I find it more interesting holding discussions with rather than spend time trying to persuade them that the world isn't conspiring against them.
And that's your prerogative.
The issue, however, was that you asserted people apply different standards in different environments.
To me, that's pretty much the textbook definition of having a double-standard.
I don't believe in proactively silencing people because others might do unless it is direct incitement. Libel deals with reputational damage trying more of the same or "shaming" is medieval (and not in a good way)
I don't believe in "proactively silencing people" either.
Again, thought, that seems to be rather missing the point; that a person shouldn't have any expectation of anonymity, especially when they're indulging in stuff which might be considered worthy of legal action.
Apparently the Mc Canns don't call Madeliene 'Maddie' either. It seems to be a case of the press using artistic licence.
Gerry has many times, even though Madeleine apparently hated being called it.
I've never once used anything but Madeleine for that very reason, and find it distasteful when the media does.. and goodness knows why her dad will occasionally.
Comments
Have you ever wondered why Twitter, with running costs far exceeding its revenue and with limited actual revenue opportunities has managed to continue for so long?
It is funded and supported by the very people who wish to enforce the agenda you outline above.
Hah! Great question. Some people do regularly post their bigotry, e.g. about a particular religion, presumably because they feel safe to do so in the bubble of anonymity afforded by the username. Their views are blindingly obvious but they either assume people on the internet don't see them for what they are or they don't care because online readers can't attach their real name to their bigotry. I expect some in their work or personal lives wouldn't think well of them if they knew about it.
I would find it incredibly strange seeing my real name where my username is on here. My username feels like my real internet name. I've been using this username for about 9 years now. I would not like using my real name online where it can be seen by people that I don't trust.
If you think it's a sign of being unwell to post updates - I might say it was an example of perhaps extreme devotion or fandom - what would you say of the couple of people in a Hello thread on the BB forum who post to each other day after day after day after day only to say Good morning, the weather is good, bad or whatever it may be? Nothing else...what is that about and are they unwell or have they some sort of hidden purpose? Because I can't fathom that at all.
Unwell and lonely, I would guess. There's an example of it rather nearer at hand, too.
It's the nature of the updates that makes me wonder what it's all about. It's basically one poster talking to themselves with the same couple of phrases, or updating with "nothing to report" every few hours.
It's very sad really.
Try the top of the page;-)
Be nicer.
It's bizarre isn't it - all of the post are completely off topic and the thread should be closed really!
Really? All the posts are off topic, or is that just another dig at a specific forum poster, as with the "try the top of the page" piece?
I think this thread has been very much on topic, with people discussing whether:
Anonymous posting contributes to the amount of bile split online.
Whether it actually has any impact if someone is posting to twitter, other sites or apps or to anywhere.
What it says about the people who do this.
Whether it's right for those people to be exposed.
Other related topics too, and all without going into the contentious subject matter of a specific person's attitude to other specific people. Seems like a good discussion to me.
I've never looked in that thread before
Just took a peek ......................it actually made me chuckle a bit {{{{ bless}}}
Usually a thread gets closed when it's lost all purposeful discussion/meaning.
Very odd.
Give over. I'm not making fun of anyone and I don't even know which out of two people you are referring to as he. You don't know them either for that matter or who or what is harmless or otherwise or who anybody on the internet actually is.
Me too. I think it's completely harmless.
I noticed that in that article in the Independent (linked to earlier in this thread), the journalist mentions "Jamie Bulger". And his family didn't even call him Jamie.
What's important to focus on is the good that came from that thread, friendships they have made, and retain to this day (online and off), due to the ...erm... obsession over those two contestants. I met my best friend through that particular thread myself!
At the end of the day, who is it harming? They aren't being abusive, defamatory or in any way insulting about either of the two, or anybody else for that matter.
Apparently the Mc Canns don't call Madeliene 'Maddie' either. It seems to be a case of the press using artistic licence.
Sorry, I wasn't particularly trying to be disparaging. I just find that particular level of obsession a bit sad, not in the insulting sense, but in the literal sense of feeling sad for somebody who has been left virtually alone to talk to themselves and post updates about a couple from a TV show years ago who have long since split, and who nobody really cares about.
Whilst I agree that the poster(s) in the thread here are relatively harmless, it does seem to highlight the strange fixations of some people online.
And that's your prerogative.
The issue, however, was that you asserted people apply different standards in different environments.
To me, that's pretty much the textbook definition of having a double-standard.
I don't believe in "proactively silencing people" either.
Again, thought, that seems to be rather missing the point; that a person shouldn't have any expectation of anonymity, especially when they're indulging in stuff which might be considered worthy of legal action.
Gerry has many times, even though Madeleine apparently hated being called it.
I've never once used anything but Madeleine for that very reason, and find it distasteful when the media does.. and goodness knows why her dad will occasionally.