Hacker News Reader

Comment by joeberon | Hacker News Reader

> The article also mentioned that this went on just as a bad online with encouragements for suicide being a frequent part of the cyber bullying.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Back in the day 2ch, which was the forerunner of 4chan in Japan, was extremely popular, but basically just as toxic and awful as 4chan. I think in Asia generally there is a LOT of aggression online.

View on HN

> I think in Asia generally there is a LOT of aggression online.

In Asia? You haven't seen Twitter yet in the US.

> You haven't seen Twitter yet in the US.

Yes I have, and there is much more of a culture to be taken care of and get emotional support there than I've seen in other countries. Even British twitter is way harsher lol Americans are generally very kind and soft

> Even British twitter is way harsher lol Americans are generally very kind and soft

You probably aren't exposed to the same kind of feed then.

Don't get in a verbal pissing contest. Bring up a concrete example. Then they can do the same. Anecdata battle until trends can be established. Or if data trends can be shown, link those.

Not every discussion between people needs to have the caliber of evidence required by a scientific study or dissertation. Besides, arguments like that tend to just end up being tennis matches where commenters lob citations back and forth at each other without reading them.

Also, I think people should feel free to share whatever life experience / observations / anecdotes they have because it's not like what we write here is going to get cited in some journal.

This was a case of "my dad can beat up your dad." Just stated as "I see worse than you are seeing." Nothing of substance. If we want to compare who's stream is worse, provide some examples, don't just say you've dealt with worse than what you assume the other person has.

Anyway, looks like I replied to the wrong post originally. And I botched my delivery. It was a poor attempt at encouraging more substantive discussion. I, for one, would have been interested in seeing an example that points out how much more ruthless a different country was, and I would have hoped that someone would show a counter example, and then a n interesting discussion pop up.

This is a conversation not a pissing context or a peer reviewed study. It's very hard to quantify one's experience. I was once active on both the UK and American sphere of twitter and I feel the American side of it is much worse. It's fine to not go further and just acknowledge different people have different experiences. We don't have to go fetch studies that take ages to read fully and to critically examine just to justify every opinion we have, especially when there's probably just as many studies pointing to the opposite.

Why didn’t you post this reply one comment up?

Sounds like a foolishly overbroad claim, perhaps you should step it back to "the Americans I follow on twitter"? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-man-targeted-...

I find that interesting, especially for countries like Korea or Japan. The stereotype of those cultures is sort of passive, and accepting of the status quo. And yet, when anonymous, the fangs come out, if not even more pointed.

I'm sure there's something there, but I'm not a social scientist. Anyone with experience in sociology/psychology have an idea what that's about?

John Gabriel's Greater Internet F*&kwad Theory explains it succinctly (language warning): https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/325/699/4fc...

I think it's precisely because of that collectivism, which leads to much harsher punishment of outliers.

Hmm, I always thought conformity-culture was the cause of social accountability of outliers. My go to example for this is the highly individual valuing, yet Patagonia vest wearing finance bros. Conformity without collectivism. It's a thing and it's much more insidious than the collectivism-conformity script we got growing up.

Yes, accurate, with tacit approval of the masses, too. Which makes things even worse.

I always thought that the more you repress aggression and competition, specially in human males, the more it will end up being expressed anyway, but in bursts or in passive-aggressive ways. Of course, this is just a personal hypothesis.

This is self-evident, especially in the West. Girls are getting further and further ahead in education because they are obedient, and not unruly and full of energy like boys. And no one gives a shit. It's instead touted as some victory for feminism or something.

Unfortunately that bites them with a lack of confidence and taking risks in the future. However that is mainly due to patriarchy and internalised misogyny in my experience.

Problem is that the "feminist" label is so simplistic as to miss all nuance ala: all that is "good for women" is "feminist".

Is being successful in school good? yes. Is being successful in later life good? yes.

So you cannot consider the "successful school dropout". "risk taking" is the missed nuance, or "it has to get worse before it gets better"/"break a bone to set the leg" etc. Instead you have the only "feminist" path as (cherry-picked populations of) girls doing well in school and successes later in life, even if those don't necessarily/naturally correlate.

If you really wanted to capture that nuance, you need the kind of discussions Jordan Peterson has wrt personality/behavioural traits and their impacts on differences in outcomes; but you can clearly see how much hostility (in the name of feminism) he receives for that.

The funny thing is how he's accused of (sex/gender) essentialism, even if backed by stats/data, despite the advocated feminist alternatives being also full of essentialism (and just-so narratives), just ones seen as more culturally palatable.

It may also be elevated self-doubt when doing something logically sound but overall risky over an extended period without social validation, and not patriarchy or misogyny.

Why would that affect women more than men?

>The stereotype of those cultures is sort of passive, and accepting of the status quo. And yet, when anonymous, the fangs come out, if not even more pointed.

I think because can be a better replacement for yet in this sentence. Repression very often leads to higher intensity.

This is the iceberg of "face" culture. Appear happy content and whatever society demands in public and let out the true opinion, feelings and yes, often hatred in anonymity or inner family.

Good thing we wouldn't introduce such a thing in the west.

Does this thing even need to be introduced?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com