thecite wrote:

You writing a thesis or something?

No, but thanks for the compliment.

thecite wrote:

I don't agree with the claim, case in point: this forum.

I would like to make a counter-claim: The YouTube comments section, which is arguably the worst (best) example of internet anonymous douchebaggery.

Having said that, I do agree that this forum is surprisingly civil and mature but it's only surprising I guess because most other forums are not (which includes other Japanese language learning forums).

Last edited by qwertyytrewq (2011 December 08, 7:51 am)

thecite wrote:

I think the YouTube comments are for the most part fine, it's just the occasional douchebag that ruins it.

I've seen far too much racism, nationalism, grammar nazism, religionism, and other ideology -isms to agree, but to be fair, most of the comments that I've seen with the most "thumbs up" that get raised to the top of the other comments are generally sane and reasonable.

It is also heartening to see that Rick Perry's (American 2012 Presidential Candidate) official commercial has almost 150,000 dislikes and only 3,000 likes (as of writing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

It shows that at least 80% of the viewers of the ad are sane, and that there is hope for America yet.

Last edited by qwertyytrewq (2011 December 08, 8:13 am)

dizmox wrote:

I'm more bothered by the non-functionality of Youtube's reply to comment feature. When someone replies to a comment there's a useless little @Name link, which doesn't actually take you to the original comment. Why can't they properly implement something so obvious? It can't just be me who thinks about this...

In general, the entire comments section is screwed, when there are multiple conversations going on, you can't tell which comment is replying to which comment. Direct replies and conversations need to be threaded like e-mail does.

That's all besides the point anyway since most YouTube comments are useless and for popular videos like Justin Bieber's "Baby" music video which has 1 million comments, who wants to read it anyway.

dizmox wrote:

I'm more bothered by the non-functionality of Youtube's reply to comment feature. When someone replies to a comment there's a useless little @Name link, which doesn't actually take you to the original comment. Why can't they properly implement something so obvious? It can't just be me who thinks about this...

Youtube comments used to be threaded! Replies would appear indented below the message they were replying to; they only added the @ crap a few years back, when twitter became popular.

Agreed total mess; now they've redesigned the look of youtube *again*, but not fixed this simple feature.

Bokusenou wrote:

I don't think that posting on the internet gives rise to flamewars and such, but it's more like it's easier for some people to post hateful comments because they can't see the reactions on others' faces.

Certainly, behind every user name, behind every computer on the internetwork, there is a human being.

Many people forget that.

qwertyytrewq wrote:

I've seen far too much racism, nationalism, grammar nazism, religionism, and other ideology -isms  [...]

I think douchebaggery is the wrong word. internet comments sections are a cesspool for uneducated uncultured people who have vile opinions to share them without responsibility or significant challenge.

i'm ashamed to admit that i have a guilty pleasure in lurking among the yahoo news comments section... probably worse than youtube from what i've seen. these people should be ashamed of themselves.

i get the feeling that if you're a redneck in the middle of the country who hates his job/doesn't have one, and hates his life, and hears that white privilige is ending bc of obama, and hears that we're losing competitive edge to china, etc... these are the people who clog up these forums like cholesterol in an artery. they are so thick there and disproportionately represented that no one else gets heard, hence the virtual train wreck at every bulletin board even remotely touching on politics.

that's why obama's bitter comment was so rough for them... these people ARE really angry... and because of the vile nature of their opinions no one is willing to listen so they flock to places like that. since the original premise of this board is self-sacrifice in the pursuit of education and multiculturalism, they will (for the most part) avoid it like kryptonite.

Last edited by dtcamero (2011 December 09, 10:21 am)

Anonymity means no one takes responsibility of what they write.
So for some people it gives them the opportunity to state their weird or not openly accepted opinions and for others it allows them to show their "chaotic" part, like for example some people might not have any opinion about the topic and they would write some offensive/silly/sarcastic stuff, maybe because of some mental insecurity?
Of course there's those who write what they would say in real life.

And about YouTube top comments, some are rational comments that represent the general opinion of the majority of the video audience , or some silly joke or notice that people find funny.

Edit: Giving it some more thought, I see what you point at with "Douchebag".
I guess that's a third type of people who "enjoy" anonymity, those who write things that they never give a second though (if any!). As someone here said that those comments on "failbook" (lol) are supposed to be read by their closed circle of people or a stranger to whom the poster is somewhat anonymous.

Last edited by undead_saif (2011 December 09, 11:45 am)

Zarxrax wrote:

I believe anonymity simply brings out people's true character.

It's very hard to find some one "true character" to begin with, which is another discussion I suppose, but I just wanted to point out that even on the internet and even if you're anonymous, you are influenced by others just as in any other kind of human connection. "Jumping on the bandwagon" etc. are phenomena that happen even with groups of people that know nothing about each other on the Internet, especially with children that don't understand the concept of anonymity very well (and when it comes to Youtube comments and the like, a lot of that is definitely written by <18yo:s). So some of the hateful comments you see on the web are the product of the same kind of deindividuation that can happen when big groups of hooligans/demonstraters/etc gather. Not saying all of it is, I just think it's wrong to assume that anonymous people on the 'Net would always be acting in a way that is not influenced by others at all. We're all humans using the computers after all, and as humans we tend to adjust ourselves to the people we interact with, even when it doesn't really make any sense to do so.

Edit: Re "I think this forum disproves that claim": The anonymity the Penny-Arcade strip is referring to is the kind of total anonymity you can get with for example online FPS games, where you only engage in quick interactions, there is no logging of your past chatting history(usually) and so on. The kind of 'anonymity' that you get here on the koohii forums and in a lot of other communities isn't the same, because here your activity is logged and unless you only only post here once or twice, you build up a kind of identity and it is possible for you to, as that identity, lose face. It's not a totally loose system where you can barge in and say whatever you want without your reputation somehow worsening.

(speaking of Penny Arcade and forums, I haven't really been posting there but I used to pay a visit to the Penny Arcade forum every now and then to read a few posts, there's plenty of good people over there. unfortunately the rating system in the 'Awesome Posts' forum disappeared when they upgraded the forum software so now it's much harder to find the best the forum has to offer)

Last edited by Surreal (2011 December 09, 3:20 pm)

I believe the reference you're looking for regarding this thread is here: http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

Besides, doesn't it defeat your point to link to instances of douchebaggery on Facebook? FB is definitely not anonymous.

Does anyone older than 12 actually "troll"? (ie. write bullshit just to get a response)
Mostly troll is just a label that people who are poor at arguing apply to those who disagree with their opinions.

I think for the most part people online write what they think, and when they have anonymity they don't need to filter what they write and don't hold back.

If i had to guess, i'd say most of those people were probably terrible people to begin with. the internet's only an exponent to the nature of a person. if they're a douche online, they're probably thinking mean things about you in person. j/s.

if you really wanted to prove your point, what good things were said about Japan via the internet and through anonymity? i think the comparison would be interesting if it could be done.

nadiatims wrote:

Does anyone older than 12 actually "troll"? (ie. write bullshit just to get a response)

Trolls come in all shapes, sizes, and of course, ages.

nadiatims wrote:

Mostly troll is just a label that people who are poor at arguing apply to those who disagree with their opinions.

Yes, that is the incorrect definition of troll: "You disagree with my (or the majority's) opinion, therefore you are a troll".

To use an analogy, the difference between a troll and a stupid person is the difference between manslaughter and murder.

The main issue is INTENT.

Corodon wrote:

You imply that this sort of behavior is somehow specific to rural white conservatives.

I'm sure he means people from all lower-socio-economic spectrums, not just rurul white conservatives (rednecks). This includes but is not limited to: c***s (lower-socio-economic white surburban British), n*****s (lower-socio-economic African-Americans), s***s (lower-socio-economic American-Mexicans) and *** (lower-socio-economic Asians).

Note that I do not know the correct equivalent derogatory term for Asians.

The point I'm making is that there is an unfortunate negative function between the following two variables: "low-socio-economic person" and "level of education and culturedness", which leads to what we call "tyranny of the majority" or the "great unwashed" occupying our internet forums with their stupidity.

Again, I'm not blaming them (most of the time anyway) for the way they are.

I blame rich people. The very very rich ones that is, who actively seek to dumb down society for their own benefit. I don't like stupid people but I like people with sinister motives even less. But that's a whole other topic.

Corodon wrote:

They just happen to be who is angry and loud at the moment.  Look at the archives of bulletin boards remotely touching on politics from a few years back and you will find just as much of an uncultured, uneducated cesspool from the other side of the political spectrum whenever George W. Bush or Sarah Palin come up in conversation.

I'm not particularly a fan of American politics or discussing American politics but in Sarah Palin's case, I think the vitriol against her was well-deserved 100%. Even the Republicans themselves disowned her.

Corodon wrote:

I could just as easily claim that since the original premise of this board is bettering oneself through hard work, that the vile types on the political left would avoid it like kryptonite.

I need more info: Could you explain in what way is the relationship between the "political left" and "hard work" like kryptonite? Even if you yourself don't believe it, I would like to see how this claim be justified.

Last edited by qwertyytrewq (2011 December 11, 3:43 am)