Reddit recently had a discussion about this. Here is the top rated comment in the thread.
Sysiphuslove:
"I don't think it's so much the anonymity of the poster as the anonymity of the victim. There's obviously a 'real person' on the other end of the conversation, but there's no face, no voice...a victim online is stripped of his humanity just enough to salve the conscience, but not enough to make an unsatisfying target.
An online victim is a perfect blank slate for projection: he is represented only by the narrowest of opinions or acts, with no other definable characteristic besides an avatar and/or screen name. It is satisfying to shoot down these faceless assertions. It isn't really personal, just a private exercise of retaliation.
Look at it this way: when someone pisses you off on the highway, are you mad at the person? Or is it, in some abstract way, the car?"
Hmm, I certainly think the point that the post you quote is getting at does have some relevance.
However, I personally feel that it is the anonymity of the poster more so than that of the victim which contributes to this "astonishing cruelty" that is sometimes evident online. I agree that it's not personal on the part of the poster. In 99.9% of cases, really how could it be? I believe the "private exercise of retaliation" is performed due to stressors in the posters life that he feels frustrated about and powerless to solve. Be those stressors related to work, family, friends, finances or whatever. They get some degree of relief by taking out their frustrations online where they can do so with this effective anonymity.
I think aside from the previously discussed anonymity, it also has a lot to do with what is acceptable for a given social group. People are capable of truly sadistic and terrible acts when they have been made to feel that those acts are acceptable by their peers. When one is not alone in their cruelty, even ostensibly "reasonable" or "normal" people can become monsters.
But well, when someone pisses me off on the road I am squarely pissed at them, not the car they're in, neither in an abstract way or otherwise. I'm not really sure what that analogy is trying to say. Were I a member of an Amazon tribe who had never seen a car before and didn't know what a car was, and one day a car shoots by, nearly running me down, then yeah, I imagine I'd be super pissed at that car.
Yeah the analogy is a bit flawed, I think of it more as, "Are you really mad at the person driving the car for that event or are you projecting your other frustrations and hatred onto that person because they are a safe target."
The anonymity of the poster certainly has a lot to do with it too. I just liked the comment because it gave me a different perspective on the issue.
"Are you really mad at the person driving the car for that event or are you projecting your other frustrations and hatred onto that person because they are a safe target."
Yes, that makes more sense and is along the lines of my own thinking above.
