Discussion: Social media and 'hater' speech

[Nicholas92]

Originally Posted by CelineD

"Hater" speech is not exclusive to social media, but the mass visibility of posts on social media websites such as FB, Twitter, and others make the intent of the speaker much more stronger, and more importantly do more damage than when spoken in a face-to-face setting.

Some questions for you:

1) How often have you seen your contacts on any social media post hateful comments about either you, someone you know or an anonymous person (he/she) publicly?

Fake (but typical) example (FB post): "That girl is such a b****!" or "We (the usage of the word 'we' is strong as it suggests that many people agree with the commenter, thus giving him/her more power) are so sick of you"

Not especially often but a related type (the 'emo' one) appears quite a bit. 'Hater' comments aren't all that prominent in my feed but they do crop up here and there...if I know who the person is, chances are it's some teacher...if I don't, it could be a personal friend of my contact's.

2) Have you posted such statuses/comments about someone that you're mad with so that they can have a piece of your mind? Do you think that they deserve it? Or do you think that it's wrong?

When I post rants or such critical comments, it's usually not 'angry' in the sense that it's a personal thing (example: posting politics news articles and ranting about politicians). So usually I only rant when I name the person(s) publicly. I don't do the whole 'you know who you are' or 'unknown friend' type of rant where I rip out someone.

I think there are a few kinds of this 'rant' or 'hate':
1) Reference to an anonymous person (who is likely the person's contact on the site)
2) Reference to an anonymous person (who is not on the site)
3) Reference to a person publicly (also in contact on the site)
4) Reference to a person publicly (who is not on the site)

1) is pretty stupid because if you're in personal contact with the person, contacting them directly to sort out the matter is much better than dragging both people through the mud in public. It's also annoying because the lame, thinly-veiled attempt at trying to make it 'private' by not naming the person is already negated by even bringing the issue out in public in the first place. They really might as well name the person rather than try to compensate however little they can (of course it shouldn't even be public to begin with)

2) is not really as juvenile as the first, but it's still a bit pointless because appearing to direct a message to someone who's definitely not going to read it (e.g. some teacher you hate) looks a bit like a chickened compromise between ranting to oneself and confronting the person. To be fair I think it's more a therapeutic exercise where you vent frustrations through writing (it does work) but I still don't like it because when it's on a site like Facebook, it also gets into people's news streams.

3) at least shows me that the person's not playing things half-assed, though we can question why the spat is even public at all. There are scenarios for it, though - say you're on Google+ and you're calling out some politician on your feed for saying something stupid, maybe you're sparking some sort of public discussion. If it's a personal friend, it'd still be pretty bad though, but as bad as this is I still say I like it better than 1) because hey, if you're going to put your problems out there at least you're not wasting our time by skirting round the issue.

4) is the only kind I may actually do - again, the calling out of people or the public criticism of people, usually things in the news. Since I obviously don't have the PM or other people added on FB, I can't of course do a 3) so this is the best I can do. At the very least this one could actually be an actual discussion about something rather than just some need to vent publicly.

3) Are you affected when people post some hateful comment, especially when there is a possibility of that person talking about you, thus spoiling your name among your friends/family/etc?

No one's done that to me to date, but I imagine it'd only affect me if I thought people might actually believe what the person's saying about me - posting to say I'm just stupid is laughable but making allegations like me embezzling money or murdering someone is pretty serious and would have to be dealt with. Hateful rants rather than proper criticisms usually come off as more juvenile and so appears less credible.

4) Last but not least, are gals the only ones guilty of such hate speech?

Personally it has been my principle to not talk about anyone that I'm mad to others online/in public (I do it in private by either writing in a journal or telling someone that I trust about it), but it seems like people just tend to bash people to release anger as a pretty normal thing, coupled with strong language.

I'm currently on an article for this topic.

Your opinions, Recommers?

Nope Guys definitely do it too. Maybe a bit differently.

(I think writing in a journal/blog is also fine because I think it's also therapeutic, without being imposing or inappropriate)

[frostbyte13]

1. Almost everyday or at least once in a few days. Hate speech is too common especially if you are friends with young teenage school kids with raging hormones. I say this because I use to be in their place but now I'm old ._. Thank God I'm still on facebook only and my circle of friends are mostly controlled people. I sometimes browse through my friend's twitters feeds on her smartphone and most of it is enough for me to conclude that Twitter is not a place you want to be when you are mad.

2. Yes but not blatantly mentioning the name. Anonymously mentioning a very distinct quality of the person that hurt you in some way or another. Often times when you are mad or in some other state of negative emotions, it's very hard to say at that moment to judge that the person does not deserve some negative criticism based on face value. Everyone does something wrong at some time of the day at some point of time in life ; it's just a matter whether you are conscious of the fact. Obviously, when I've cooled and given reasoning a less weight over my review of a person, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. This for me is unique because it's due to my upbringing in terms of moral principles and religious spirituality.

3. Yes of course who isn't. As tough as you want everyone to see, and how you think what only matters is what you think about yourself, come on. We are humans, hence what is the purpose our emotions serve as? Our emotions are a primitive response to physical changes in the environment i.e. being insulted. We are not tough as nails as we want to be, no matter how much you want to claim that. Even the toughest of men cry at their weak spots. If a person is continuously ignorant of someone's hateful comment that may be serving as an opportunity to change themselves to a more positive manner, then I'm speechless for that. Plain and indiscriminate ignorance of other people's criticism is the essence of being vain and egoistic.

4. Both sexes are guilty, no quarter for that.