I was talking to a friend today and I ended up insulting her. I tend to do that. Insult friends. But that is not what this post is about. So yeah we were talking and she was telling me that an online friend who she had never met in real life was confiding in her details of her morally questionable love life. My friend wondered what made her do that. It set me thinking.
My friend's online friend, let's call her Cleopatra, went into great detail about her dilemma in continuing/ending a relationship. She talked about how terrible she felt to be in that situation and how much she hated herself for deviating from the path dictated by her moral compass. To me Cleo's need to get it all out was more than just cathartic. Sure, it feels good to own up to one's guilt. It's socially programmed into us from early childhood. But is the perception of guilt that simple? Do people in real life feel actual remorse for their reprehensible actions? What happens when the wrongness of the action itself cannot be ascertained. I believe sometimes, certainly in Cleo's case, the resemblance of one's situation with an archetypal mytheme of human relationships triggers the need to want to be that person who would recognize their error of judgement and sacrifice personal well-being to maintain the balance in the universe. Pretty tragic sounding, this. Cleo is not that person. But she wants to be. Hence playing of the part. To an audience. My friend is that audience. And then there is the GIFT.
GIFT or the Great Internet F***wad Theory posits that given anonymity and an audience a regular person can turn into a total f**k. In this case the anonymity is only partial as Cleo's online identity is not secret. But there is very little difference between the homophobic troll that frequently flames my favorite TV show's tpb page and people like Cleo who tell stories to near strangers about their private lives.
Come to think of it, I and many many of my friends and acquaintances display online disinhibition to varying degrees. Though I imagine it's not always a bad thing. Like when it gives voice to someone who cannot find one in the real world. I just wish I see the good side of it more often than the unseemly one.
My friend's online friend, let's call her Cleopatra, went into great detail about her dilemma in continuing/ending a relationship. She talked about how terrible she felt to be in that situation and how much she hated herself for deviating from the path dictated by her moral compass. To me Cleo's need to get it all out was more than just cathartic. Sure, it feels good to own up to one's guilt. It's socially programmed into us from early childhood. But is the perception of guilt that simple? Do people in real life feel actual remorse for their reprehensible actions? What happens when the wrongness of the action itself cannot be ascertained. I believe sometimes, certainly in Cleo's case, the resemblance of one's situation with an archetypal mytheme of human relationships triggers the need to want to be that person who would recognize their error of judgement and sacrifice personal well-being to maintain the balance in the universe. Pretty tragic sounding, this. Cleo is not that person. But she wants to be. Hence playing of the part. To an audience. My friend is that audience. And then there is the GIFT.
GIFT or the Great Internet F***wad Theory posits that given anonymity and an audience a regular person can turn into a total f**k. In this case the anonymity is only partial as Cleo's online identity is not secret. But there is very little difference between the homophobic troll that frequently flames my favorite TV show's tpb page and people like Cleo who tell stories to near strangers about their private lives.
Come to think of it, I and many many of my friends and acquaintances display online disinhibition to varying degrees. Though I imagine it's not always a bad thing. Like when it gives voice to someone who cannot find one in the real world. I just wish I see the good side of it more often than the unseemly one.
2 comments:
Thanks for introducing me to another internet term GIFT. Hmmm. People's and my own internet behaviour brings to my mind the image of a squirrel who stuffs his head inside a hole and thinks no one can see him. It's so dangerous to feel like that.
And that idea of Cleo 'playing'the guilty party I think is spot-on.
Lol. You are welcome. :) Here's more gyan - Poe's law. It states that without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.
While it is amusing, it also raises serious questions about the nature of satire and parody.
Post a Comment