What drives online bullying?

I’m repeating the other posters view not mine and forgot the inverted commas. I don’t use inverted commas usually so you’ll have to excuse me.

Point still stands.

I didn’t call “her a dose” either, just in case it came across that way.

l

i explained my comment fairly.

im sure people understand.

Everyone makes mistakes, don't worry. People will understand.

But was that really bullying? I didn't see the posts but AFAIK she was called out on asking for people to do illegal things. That's not acceptable due to the risk it causes for the Boards owners. The posters behaviour was not malicious towards the elderly woman.

I’m sure they will too.

Do you believe calling someone a dose/ freak show and so on is online bullying or are people entitled to do that ?

I suppose its back to the free speech type conversation.

Take the example of Steven Rice”s girlfriend, she was certainly getting nasty comments.

Lots of bullying comes from dickheaded middle aged people and dickheaded older people.

Not sure if your question is rhetorical or actually wants an answer. But if the latter then I would err towards saying that is not at all bullying no. Discussing your opinion of someone online is not really any different to discussing it down the pub with your mates. Both of which you are perfectly entitled to do and should absolutely be entitled to do.

And it happens a lot. Just scroll through the threads on Blindboy on this forum for example. You get the usual negging, abuse and - a phenomenon which happens a lot when discussing public celebrity - people claiming to know what the person in question is thinking and feeling half the time. "He just wants - " "He thinks he is so - " "He believes he - " and other examples of the speaker seemingly having acquired the attribute of being psychic. A module I clearly missed at University.

Or you get people just knee jerk posting whatever nonsense their news media of choice has told them to. For example the user of this forum who periodically goes around claiming Joe Rogan took and promoted horse medicine when he absolutely did no such thing. But no collision with reality or facts is going to divest people of their soundbites and spins, it seems.

I will not discuss the particular person mentioned myself however as A) I know less than nothing about them, their life, their opinions, their activities or even their appearance other than having pieced together the fact that it's apparently the stage name of our most recent entry to the Eurovision and B) I have even less interest than Strumms at playing to the rules of the pronouns game online and I use language today the same as I did when I first learned it 40+ years ago and have little interest in the concept of people "having" individual pronouns or that I am required to have some mental database remembering what each person uses so I can use the same one(s) too. Nor do I generally see it as the "respect" issue many try to portray it as - though context and nuance would come into that.

None of any of this constitutes "bullying" in my opinion. Someone posted a dictionary definition of bullying earlier. While helpful I think human psychological behaviors are generally a lot more complex than a single dictionary definition is likely to account for. As such my thoughts and concepts and definitions of "bullying" are likely a lot broader than that definition. But even then I see little in negative online discussion of a celebrity that constitutes bullying or even close to it. If such people were intentionally going to such a persons personal Twitter/Insta/Facebook account and bombarding them with that negativity, then sure - we are likely getting into a greyer area there. But even then there would be a lot of context and nuance to consider but this post - as usual for me lets face it - is already more than long enough.

All that said - That does not mean it's a particularly good thing. If someone finds themselves negatively talking about someone in any environment, I would wonder A) why they even care and B) if it's at all healthy. Worse - a lot of such critiques are hardly that enlightening or deep or meaningful. Simply saying "yer wan is a dose isn't she" and nothing else to qualify that would be about as refined as an out of date Aldi bargain basement wine though it can probably make a speaker feel edgy and cutting (Dunning–Kruger effect?). It demeans the speaker more than the target in reality. I've had friends who had little to do in social situations but bad mouth public and personal personas. These Debbie Downers are simply not my friends any more.

But what drives it all is more the topic of the thread. Someone once said “Every criticism, judgment, diagnosis, and expression of anger is the tragic expression of an unmet need.” and while a bit general I often wonder how true it is. Or is it simply that some people have genuinely got nothing better to do / worry about in their lives? It's rare for me to find someone with a life full of meaning and sport and challange and growth and challange - who appears to have a single issue with Blindboy having a bag on his head for example. When I find such a person they are more often than not someone who spends 8-10 hours a day playing online computer games or watching reality TV. Which if it is making them happy is a perfectly fine way to spend your life. But - is it?

That's two outta three. The amigos love to "bully"

I 100% agree that the potential a person might see the negativity is of course higher when it's in writing on line rather than just you talking to a random mate in a random pub. And even higher again if you intentionally seek to directly message their social media accounts.

I just do not think myself that this is wholly relevant. It is entirely our right (or at least it should be) to talk about anyone in any public sphere in almost any way that we want. And I still do not know any definition of "bullying" that seems to apply to excercising that right.

I would certainly prefer to live in a world where people would excercise that right with consideration. I myself when I speak in the real world or write in the online world do so under the assumption anyone I mention will see it. They most likely never will. But I conduct myself as best I can as I would if I was 100% sure they will see it. If I am in a pub for example and I mention someone - I do so imagining that that person is standing directly behind me. If I would not say it to their face - I most likely will not say it at all.

But that is me and my personal standard. I can not force it on anyone else. The question relevant to this thread is whether being a bit of a social ass and bad mouthing someone constitutes "bullying". Even en masse. And I genuinely do not think that is what bullying means. Unfortunately however - I think one could write an entire book on what does or does not constitute bullying and I think we can both agree my posts suffer from being too long at the best of times as it is :)

Sometimes people are voicing their disagreement and sometimes they are piling on. Let's use another term if you object to that one - ganging up.

There usually is a difference in tone between the disagreeing and the ganging up on. The ganging up is usually abusive and aggressive.

Well, let me put it this way, Stephen Rice's partner deleted her social media because of the abuse she got. I's say she was pretty upset and would not view that as free publicity.

You only have to look at a politicians social media to see the type of gang up bullying including people going round to their homes and intimidating their families, encouraged by the group-think of toxic social media.

You can disagree with any policitican or all of them and are more than entitled to do so, but when you abuse them or get personal, you cross the line into bullying territory.

Sorry, I mean Declan Rice's partner - am not into football at all, a perfect example of pile on and bullying over her appearance.

I don't believe that people who have a public profile have to put up with abuse from the public.

You don't have to agree, I said to another poster here, everyone looking at this differently.