If someone's being unreasonable on a thread and you call them out, that's not hazing. But I have seen hazing (think sleep deprivation, emotional mind games, arbitrary memorization drills, boot-camp style yelling while blindfolded, etc., all in the name of tradition and bonding) and it is amazing how many people rationalize it as necessary suffering. That's what I was talking about.
Those are all actually harmful activities, except maybe the memorization game.
The memorization drills are typically combined with the others, and also help to distract the person from what is being done to them, bc they are too busy trying to achieve this task.
It would be naive to say this can't occur online. Although it mostly (thankfully) doesn't apply to this forum (as opposed to, say, 4chan), I think if someone was given a hard time as a nub and benefitted (subjectively) from it, they might be more inclined to do the same to future nubs, regardless of how helpful it is in that particular case. For those who "haze" and see it "work" (cognitive bias), the behavior becomes increasingly rationalized. There's a lot going on subconsciously, with the power dynamic of being hazed (or just being new to the group's dynamics) being personally redefined as the power dynamic of hazing another (educating nubs, having power of "tradition"). My personal rule of thumb is anything for someone else's "own good" should undergo heavy personal scrutiny.
Hazing online is different because a person can just leave. Is there a forum thread with a lot of insults that upset you? Just don't read it. Someone sending a zillion harassing e-mails and messages? It's trivial to block and filter them. It's possible for it to spill out into the real world, but then it's not Internet anymore.
Only in the real world can it become impossible to escape and ignore things. Someone can lock you in a room, or they can physically overpower you. If someone is hazed on the Internet, they are least partially at fault. Is this blaming the victim? Yes, but blaming the victim is not always wrong.
Imagine a door that has a label on it that says "enter this door and be harassed." You can't enter that door of your own volition and then complain about harassment. Nobody forced you through that door. Also, nobody prevented you from leaving that door. You could enter for one second, be harassed for one second, close the window, and never go in again. Staying in that room is a deliberate choice. That is hazing on the Internets.
If you look at abuse cycles in "real life" there are often many cases where the victim "could" leave. But there are "reasons" to stay. Some of those reasons also apply to online situations. Off the top of my head, low self-esteem, lack of emotional support, desire to seek approval, feeling responsible for abuse, believing you can change the abuser, seeing abuse as a challenge to overcome, or poorly defined boundaries (what is or is not ok). And, sometimes, the abused feel comfortable in an abusive setting, despite being unhappy. Human brain is weird sometimes.
If you look at abuse cycles in "real life" there are often many cases where the victim "could" leave. But there are "reasons" to stay. Some of those reasons also apply to online situations. Off the top of my head, low self-esteem, lack of emotional support, desire to seek approval, feeling responsible for abuse, believing you can change the abuser, seeing abuse as a challenge to overcome, or poorly defined boundaries (what is or is not ok). And, sometimes, the abused feel comfortable in an abusive setting, despite being unhappy. Human brain is weird sometimes.
Yes, human brain is weird. But it's still your brain that you control. I'm not putting all fault on the victim, only some. But if you insist on taking away 100% of the fault then are you not also admitting the victim completely lacks free will?
If you look at abuse cycles in "real life" there are often many cases where the victim "could" leave. But there are "reasons" to stay. Some of those reasons also apply to online situations. Off the top of my head, low self-esteem, lack of emotional support, desire to seek approval, feeling responsible for abuse, believing you can change the abuser, seeing abuse as a challenge to overcome, or poorly defined boundaries (what is or is not ok). And, sometimes, the abused feel comfortable in an abusive setting, despite being unhappy. Human brain is weird sometimes.
Yes, human brain is weird. But it's still your brain that you control. I'm not putting all fault on the victim, only some. But if you insist on taking away 100% of the fault then are you not also admitting the victim completely lacks free will?
If you look at abuse cycles in "real life" there are often many cases where the victim "could" leave. But there are "reasons" to stay. Some of those reasons also apply to online situations. Off the top of my head, low self-esteem, lack of emotional support, desire to seek approval, feeling responsible for abuse, believing you can change the abuser, seeing abuse as a challenge to overcome, or poorly defined boundaries (what is or is not ok). And, sometimes, the abused feel comfortable in an abusive setting, despite being unhappy. Human brain is weird sometimes.
Yes, human brain is weird. But it's still your brain that you control. I'm not putting all fault on the victim, only some. But if you insist on taking away 100% of the fault then are you not also admitting the victim completely lacks free will?
When someone is brainwashed, whose fault is it?
edited for grammar errorrrr.
When someone is brainwashed, are they still a person?
When someone is brainwashed, are they still a person?
Define person? Biologically human being? Certainly. Are you saying that a person in a permanent irreconcilable vegetative state is a non-person, and that brainwashing is analogous to that + programming? That walks some weird lines with some difficult questions to answer.
If you look at abuse cycles in "real life" there are often many cases where the victim "could" leave. But there are "reasons" to stay. Some of those reasons also apply to online situations. Off the top of my head, low self-esteem, lack of emotional support, desire to seek approval, feeling responsible for abuse, believing you can change the abuser, seeing abuse as a challenge to overcome, or poorly defined boundaries (what is or is not ok). And, sometimes, the abused feel comfortable in an abusive setting, despite being unhappy. Human brain is weird sometimes.
Yes, human brain is weird. But it's still your brain that you control. I'm not putting all fault on the victim, only some. But if you insist on taking away 100% of the fault then are you not also admitting the victim completely lacks free will?
As usual, you're oversimplifying, Scott. Yes, the victim is partially at fault in such a case, but blaming them isn't going to help them to regain control.
If you look at abuse cycles in "real life" there are often many cases where the victim "could" leave. But there are "reasons" to stay. Some of those reasons also apply to online situations. Off the top of my head, low self-esteem, lack of emotional support, desire to seek approval, feeling responsible for abuse, believing you can change the abuser, seeing abuse as a challenge to overcome, or poorly defined boundaries (what is or is not ok). And, sometimes, the abused feel comfortable in an abusive setting, despite being unhappy. Human brain is weird sometimes.
Yes, human brain is weird. But it's still your brain that you control. I'm not putting all fault on the victim, only some. But if you insist on taking away 100% of the fault then are you not also admitting the victim completely lacks free will?
As usual, you're oversimplifying, Scott. Yes, the victim is partially at fault in such a case, but blaming them isn't going to help them to regain control.
I never said it would help them. The truth hurts, it doesn't help.
Is it possible that people who are able to be brainwashed in certain ways are dangerous in the same way that disease carriers are? That cultural evolution could select against people who are easily influenced by others in certain ways?
If someone is hazed on the Internet, they are least partially at fault. Is this blaming the victim? Yes, but blaming the victim is not always wrong.
Imagine a door that has a label on it that says "enter this door and be harassed." You can't enter that door of your own volition and then complain about harassment. Nobody forced you through that door. Also, nobody prevented you from leaving that door. You could enter for one second, be harassed for one second, close the window, and never go in again. Staying in that room is a deliberate choice. That is hazing on the Internets.
GOOD LORD. I'm so tempted to just strike through a few words and replace them with relevant words to make the entire speech about rape.
Yes, human brain is weird. But it's still your brain that you control.
You don't control your brain, your brain controls the You. And a simple pill can make you want to kill yourself or vice versa. Large, large parts of your brain are also completely automatic or would you like to decide when you digest that hamburger? Churba would've been married to a nice British girl by now if it wasn't for a fucking pill.
Is it possible that people who are able to be brainwashed in certain ways are dangerous in the same way that disease carriers are? That cultural evolution could select against people who are easily influenced by others in certain ways?
What bothers me more is this train of logic. Let me know if it jives with you people, because this is how I see it.
Assume that the population can be divided into two sets, those who can be brainwashed and those who can not be.
Now the people who can not be brainwashed presumably some subset of them have the ability to perform brainwashing.
Of those people who can perform brainwashing some of them are morally opposed to brainwashing and will not do it. The others will gladly do it.
Those who have no moral problem using brainwashing as a tool are also more likely to use this power to brainwash people to do bad things, instead of brainwashing people to do good things.
So in a situation where a large enough portion of the population are succeptible, is it not a foregone conclusion that the non-brainwashed minority of people who have the brainwashing power, but lack morals, will necessarily control the actions of a majority of the population of people resulting in a mostly bad world?
It's entirely possible. It may be the world we live in. But admitting to being susceptible to brainwashing and to being brainwashed is something few people can do, even if they want to (which most don't). The whole point behind brainwashing is that you don't know that it's happening, so no one will ever be aware.
So, in your case, who is the "dangerous" element? The people with the ability to brainwash, or the people capable of being brainwashed?
It depends on many factors.
Ideologically speaking if you treat the brainwashed as humans, they have to take at least some, but not all, of the responsibility for their actions. If you view them as sheep, as literal animals, then the evil shepherds are entirely responsible. Shepherds carry most of the blame either way.
Practically speaking we should just attack whatever problem is easier to battle. Is it easier to immunize and cure people who are brainwashed, or is it easier to stop the brainwashers from carrying out their evil plans? Will a two pronged attack be most effective? Whatever works best, just do it.
Is it possible that people who are able to be brainwashed in certain ways are dangerous in the same way that disease carriers are? That cultural evolution could select against people who are easily influenced by others in certain ways?
What bothers me more is this train of logic. Let me know if it jives with you people, because this is how I see it.
Assume that the population can be divided into two sets, those who can be brainwashed and those who can not be.
Now the people who can not be brainwashed presumably some subset of them have the ability to perform brainwashing.
Also, some of the people who can be brainwashed would also have the ability to perform brainwashing. In fact, if the two things were orthogonal, most of the brainwashers would themselves be brainwashable.
Of those people who can perform brainwashing some of them are morally opposed to brainwashing and will not do it. The others will gladly do it.
Not true. Being morally opposed to brainwashing doesn't mean you won't do it.
Those who have no moral problem using brainwashing as a tool are also more likely to use this power to brainwash people to do bad things, instead of brainwashing people to do good things.
So in a situation where a large enough portion of the population are succeptible, is it not a foregone conclusion that the non-brainwashed minority of people who have the brainwashing power, but lack morals, will necessarily control the actions of a majority of the population of people resulting in a mostly bad world?
Doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion to me, mostly based on the last objection of mine.
Hmm, people will still do brainwashing even though they know it is bad. Yeah, but I think that might only work assuming the first thing you said where people who can be brainwashed also have the power to brainwash. Would someone really act against their own moral compass without some sort of outside mental influence? You know, "just taking orders." So perhaps the only people who will use their brainwashing power while simultaneously being opposed to it are brainwash susceptible themselves. Maybe.
Are you actually serious that it is possible to brainwash someone? As in turn them into a robot/zombie type being? Could you define what you mean by brainwashing?
Ah, but you could be using the brainwashing as a necessary evil in order to maintain social order.
Is social order a greater good? Would you rather live in a world of well behaved zombies, or a chaotic world of interesting and real people?
The latter, but that's the real world anyway ^_~ Besides, using that power to maintain social order doesn't necessarily mean making everyone into well behaved zombies. It could easily be much more subtle and be used as a defensive technique rather than pre-emptively; although that wouldn't be "brainwashing" per se it would clearly be using the same vulnerabilities.
I've always believed that novelty is the greatest virtue. I much prefer chaos as long as it's interesting.
That might sound well and good, but I doubt it can stand up to deeper inquiry.
Comments
It would be naive to say this can't occur online. Although it mostly (thankfully) doesn't apply to this forum (as opposed to, say, 4chan), I think if someone was given a hard time as a nub and benefitted (subjectively) from it, they might be more inclined to do the same to future nubs, regardless of how helpful it is in that particular case. For those who "haze" and see it "work" (cognitive bias), the behavior becomes increasingly rationalized. There's a lot going on subconsciously, with the power dynamic of being hazed (or just being new to the group's dynamics) being personally redefined as the power dynamic of hazing another (educating nubs, having power of "tradition"). My personal rule of thumb is anything for someone else's "own good" should undergo heavy personal scrutiny.
Only in the real world can it become impossible to escape and ignore things. Someone can lock you in a room, or they can physically overpower you. If someone is hazed on the Internet, they are least partially at fault. Is this blaming the victim? Yes, but blaming the victim is not always wrong.
Imagine a door that has a label on it that says "enter this door and be harassed." You can't enter that door of your own volition and then complain about harassment. Nobody forced you through that door. Also, nobody prevented you from leaving that door. You could enter for one second, be harassed for one second, close the window, and never go in again. Staying in that room is a deliberate choice. That is hazing on the Internets.
edited for grammar errorrrr.
All shields forward! Ramming speed!
This conversation is weird.
Assume that the population can be divided into two sets, those who can be brainwashed and those who can not be.
Now the people who can not be brainwashed presumably some subset of them have the ability to perform brainwashing.
Of those people who can perform brainwashing some of them are morally opposed to brainwashing and will not do it. The others will gladly do it.
Those who have no moral problem using brainwashing as a tool are also more likely to use this power to brainwash people to do bad things, instead of brainwashing people to do good things.
So in a situation where a large enough portion of the population are succeptible, is it not a foregone conclusion that the non-brainwashed minority of people who have the brainwashing power, but lack morals, will necessarily control the actions of a majority of the population of people resulting in a mostly bad world?
But admitting to being susceptible to brainwashing and to being brainwashed is something few people can do, even if they want to (which most don't). The whole point behind brainwashing is that you don't know that it's happening, so no one will ever be aware.
Ideologically speaking if you treat the brainwashed as humans, they have to take at least some, but not all, of the responsibility for their actions. If you view them as sheep, as literal animals, then the evil shepherds are entirely responsible. Shepherds carry most of the blame either way.
Practically speaking we should just attack whatever problem is easier to battle. Is it easier to immunize and cure people who are brainwashed, or is it easier to stop the brainwashers from carrying out their evil plans? Will a two pronged attack be most effective? Whatever works best, just do it.
Besides, using that power to maintain social order doesn't necessarily mean making everyone into well behaved zombies. It could easily be much more subtle and be used as a defensive technique rather than pre-emptively; although that wouldn't be "brainwashing" per se it would clearly be using the same vulnerabilities. That might sound well and good, but I doubt it can stand up to deeper inquiry.