Seems, madam, nay it is, I know not seems
An interesting, teasing conundrum here. Is it possible to be insulting and ragey in public for hours every day while not actually being as insulting and ragey as that would seem?
Seen on Twitter today: “I’m not nearly as mean as I probably seem on Twitter.”
The tweeter, as you’ll have guessed, is someone who is insulting and ragey on Twitter for hours every day, so much so that that “probably seem” is laughable. Probably? Probably?
Anyway, is that possible? I’m not sure it is. I think if you act “mean” (i.e. sadistic and belligerent) a lot of the time then…well, you are sadistic and belligerent, aren’t you. Acting it is being it. “Seeming” it is being it. Doing it is the same as being it – making a distinction between the two is a kind of self-exculpation that is no doubt cheering to the self-exculpater but not coherent.
If you punch smaller people repeatedly you don’t just “seem” like a bully, you are a bully. If you say mean shit to people all day then you are a person who says mean shit to people – you are as mean as you seem. There is no space between the being and the seeming.
And…if that were not true…if the self-exculpating agent really were not as mean as xir seems…then the agent wouldn’t say mean shit to people all day. You know? Am I making a philosophical error here? The two seem inextricable to me. It’s rather like the old “He doesn’t mean all that, he’s just insecure” trope. Why? How do you know? How do you know he’s insecure rather than a sadist?
Oh, the wealth of aphorisms to draw from here. “Actions speak louder than words?” “Believe someone when they reveal themselves to you?” Etc.
Yeah, out in the real world there are checks and balances (from people who won’t tolerate rude assholes). It’s much safer for cowards to spew their sewage from the safety of their mom’s basement.
In one way, I believe that many such individuals are not as ‘mean’ in meatspace as they are on Twitter, or Facebook, or whereever. But this is not high praise, nor even an attempt at exculpation. Rather, it is a recognition that many people who are ‘mean’ in their heart of hearts are also cowards of the first order, and have become just civilized enough to know that there would be consequences to them for such conduct in the real world, and thus they channel it all into mediums where they believe they can escape those consequences.
I think there is something to the notion that people in a mob set aside norms that usually curb their actions. I think Twit lends itself to a kind of mob mentality. Sociologically, I think that has been borne out in studies of crowd behavior. Then there’s the sense that online stuff “isn’t real.”. It’s like playing a game. Lots of people play games where they kill virtual people all day, but don’t attack real people in meatspace.
I find it weird that others find it fun to play games where they kill virtual people all day though.
I interpret this the same as Freemage: I do believe people like this are ‘meaner’ online than in person, but I believe this is because they’re less inhibited online. When they go online they let their inner meanness out. That, plus the mob mentality of online spaces, and the virtue signaling aspect of fervently ‘burning the witches’ makes for a really nasty synergy.
‘I’m not as bad as I seem’ is what they’re thinking when they try to square their self-perception with the reality of their behavior.
We too often elide the internal and external perspectives (self vs group), and this is the source of much of the “identify as” nonsense. Although we may sincerely identify as kind/fair/honest/decent/etc., others might recognize a different identity. Are we really who we believe we are, what others say we are, or a combination?
Ironically, self-esteem is something that only other people can influence (so be careful who you interact with).
Do ratmen and plague cultists count as people? I find killing them quite relaxing and fulfilling. Couldn’t say why in particular…
I think it’s the other way around. If you are only nice to people face to face, because you are worried about being punished in some way, whether it’s being socially shunned, punched in the face, arrested, or sent to hell after death, you are not really nice. And if you are vile online anonymously, that’s who you really are when you think you can get away with it.
I think to an extent that’s true of everyone… The human tendency to talk shit about people behind their back is pretty strong. Of course, you can actively try not to do this but all indications are that Americans at least have a high density of nasty people.
Honestly, I can sort of see it going both ways.
On the one hand, a lot of tone is lost in text – the written word doesn’t carry the inflections, the half-laugh, the various small indicators that soften the words involved. I come off a lot angrier in text than in reality.
On the other hand, I’m more comfortable with text than the spoken word, because in the process of writing, I’ve thought about it a bit.
There are a lot of times when I start typing, read what I’ve written, and scrap it for one reason or another. I’m sure a lot of people here are the same.
Which can have a weird effect on text me vs real me. As much as the written me hasn’t got all the umms and ahs, it does have the stuff I felt was worth putting in text.
So I’m really not sure whether my online persona is more of a reflection of the real me(tm) than my offline persona.
I interact with a lot of people online, because of my inability to do so in person; and now that a member of the (three-generation) household has tested positive for COVID, everyone is confined to home anyway, and are all isolating from one another (the rest of us have been testing negative). We’re all, bar the youngest, fully vaccinated and boosted. Even the positive person isn’t actually sick, but had taken the test as a precaution before going back to work.
Anyway, back to the topic: no-one I usually interact with is mean on social media if they aren’t mean in person. I know that anecdotes aren’t data, but when that is a pattern recognised by all, I think that it is safe to formulate the hypothesis that what the twit should have said was “I’m much better at hiding my mean nature in person than I am on Twitter.”
Ahhh yes. That’s it. But of course it would be so much less self-consoling, or self-flattering, to say.
Something from my digital scrapbook…
This. So much this. This is my experience of living around southerners and midwesterners. Every time I hear “Nebraska Nice”, this is what I think of. Every time I hear someone interacting with rich southern landowners who are sitting on a fortune they inherited from their slave-owning ancestors, still carrying around the racism in the core of their being, and they say ‘oh, but Southerners are the nicest people I ever met’.
The single ‘nicest’ person I ever met is truly courteous, enjoyable, and pleasant to everyone. He is also a Trumpista, a climate change denier, and a nativist. The question I often ask myself is how nice is he really, then? I think the niceness is genuine, not an act. It isn’t forced. But…there is a core of hate and seething anger he doesn’t usually let us see. (I do the same thing, though not as completely, because I am snarky and sarcastic, but I rarely let people see what I really think of them, at least if that thinking is negative. My interactions usually go okay, though people get put off by my rather offbeat sense of humor. It doesn’t fit well in rural Nebraska.)
I don’t think we’ll solve the ongoing problems in this world until we are honest about how many people really do hate us (us being progressives, liberals, whatever term you wish).
What I’m most afraid of is not being punished in some way, whether it’s being socially shunned, punched in the face, arrested, or sent to hell after death, but hurting/shaming/embarrassing someone. That sounds as if I’m saying what a nice person I am, but I’m not – it’s more the opposite. I’m capable of saying really mean things, but I can’t stand that feeling of having drawn emotional blood.
The danger of social media of course is that you can’t see your target flinch.
I kind of don’t care which is the “real” person; or, equivalently (and what I think most in this thread are saying), it’s all part of who you are. (Peter N’s citation to the Rule of Goats is apt.)
What you do online counts. It’s not morally better to rob someone by hacking into their online accounts than by picking their pocket.
Did we ever draw these distinctions for any other medium? I mean, I guess occasionally I’d hear someone say that a person was nicer in person than on the telephone. But I suppose the issue is that the internet allows everyone to reach a wide audience of strangers in a way that wasn’t available to most people before. I imagine there were newspaper columnists who were said to be delightful in person in contrast to their acerbic published work.
iknklast@15, I wonder if what’s going on with the kind of person you describe isn’t a question of circles of .. empathy? I think there’s a sociological term for it. Basically, some people are really good at being very kind to their friends and family, polite and nice to their acquaintances, neighbors, and business contacts, but anyone further out, in society generally, can go fuck themselves. (And of course, for some, there’s another circle of “people I don’t know but who share my race/culture/etc.”) Other people are better at extending their empathy, or at least some decency, further out. Certainly I think it’s better to be the latter type of person, though of course we all favor those closer to us — we couldn’t get through the day if we reacted to poverty, illness, or suffering of strangers on the other side of the world the way we would if it happened to someone we knew personally.
@Screechy Monkey #17
“I kind of don’t care which is the “real” person;…”
We judge ourselves by our intentions, but judge others ONLY by their actions (using different brain regions).
However, inferring intentions (RTPJ / theory of mind) from actions (including subtle signals and such) is vital to predicting dangerous behavior. Even low quality intention assessments are useful for effective Safeguarding.
Aks fundamental attribution error.