Words Can Kill (Mods, Please Lock)

[123Yourgone]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21882976/?GT1=10547

 

 

 

Justice, for the win?

Justice would be the parents admitting that they were at fault here, they kept the girl in a bubble, she was unable to handle the harrasment becouse she was protected at every turn by overbearing parents, they wouldnt let her use the internet unsupervised for christs sake, id have killed myself too, not to mention she had a.d.d Which was probably misdiagnosed asperges, you guys have no idea what people go through trying to get through school and just general life with a.d.d, asperges or autism even without overprotective parents looking over their shoulders 24/7.

[ego_scorpion]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21882976/?GT1=10547

 

 

 

Justice, for the win?

Justice would be the parents admitting that they were at fault here, they kept the girl in a bubble, she was unable to handle the harrasment becouse she was protected at every turn by overbearing parents, they wouldnt let her use the internet unsupervised for christs sake, id have killed myself too, not to mention she had a.d.d Which was probably misdiagnosed asperges, you guys have no idea what people go through trying to get through school and just general life with a.d.d, asperges or autism even without overprotective parents looking over their shoulders 24/7.

 

 

 

I suffer from severe form of a.d.d. and dislexia - im still alive and kicking.

[qeltar]

I respectfully request that a moderator either intervene to stop the thread hijacking and off-topic posts, or lock the thread.

 

 

 

Thank you to those who participated reasonably.

[Adamfostas]

I do hope this thread isn't locked before I can make a response. There's been a certain amount of name calling, but largely the debate has been fairly reasonable by Interweb standards.

 

 

 

Firstly, I wholly agree with Qeltar on the subject of the misunderstanding of depression that appears on this thread. I know the first time I met someone with depression my reaction was similar - "Oh, you're just being sad, get over it, this is dull." Over the next few months of getting to know this person I realised that it's not like the sadness I had experienced. The nearest analogy is physical disability - owing to the brain chemistry of people with depression, certain actions and choices are not open to them, in the same way that someone in a wheelchair is unable to get up and dance a merry jig.

 

 

 

Oh, and to all those people advocating a bizarre form of Darwinism as a reason why this girl's suicide was acceptable? Let's see you live in the woods for a year armed with nothing but a stick. Either society takes care of all of its members or it degenerates into vicious tribalism.

 

 

 

Secondly, I wholly disagree with Qeltar on the interpretation of this article. The internet is a wholly unprecedented communications medium that allows individuals to form various novel types of relationships with others of whom they have little or no information. In these new forms of relationship, there is little restraint upon what can and what cannot be said to one another. Anonymity assures a form of repercussion-free communication not available to real-world society. This has various impacts, one of which Qeltar is claiming is the suicide of this girl.

 

 

 

What are the causes of this suicide? This appears to be the main source of contention on this thread. While on a very basic level, the direct cause of her suicide were the actions of the 'Josh' adults, this fails to take into account the various contributing factors that affected the outcome. I'll itemise what I believe them to be.

 

 

 

1) The actions of the adults who set up the 'Josh' account. The internet here acts as an enabling factor, in terms of permitting these actions.

 

2) The depression suffered by the girl.

 

3) The inability of the girl to make effective choices when confronted with the actions of the 'Josh' adults.

 

 

 

Now, what contributed to (3)? Certainly, (2) was a factor, but along with this we have to consider the role of the parents in taking the responsibility for making choices away from the child. In doing this, they failed to educate her in - or, indeed, allowed her to find out for herself - ways of behaving on the internet that minimise the risk of this sort of occurrence. They thus exposed their child to unnecessary risk, ironically while trying to do the opposite.

 

 

 

What Qeltar is arguing for is action to curtail the enabling factor in (1). It is to be noted that the only impact of this would be to remove the ease by which the actions of the 'Josh' adults were carried out - there were various other media available to them (kids, for example, do like to pass notes). It would not have necessarily prevented this case, merely made cases like it more unlikely.

 

 

 

However, exactly the same could be said for better education regarding internet behaviour for both the parents and the child. Policing the internet removes its main benefit: unconstrained communication. For every child who kills themselves, I would suspect that I can find hundreds more children who were previously at risk of suicide through loneliness who have found more to live for via online communities who accept them. Indeed, if you want to find an enormous number of angsty teenagers who support each other in their angst, you've only got to look to LiveJournal.

 

 

 

In the modern world, children are constantly bombarded with messages designed to play upon their inadequacy. We call it advertising. Many of the most popular shows for the teenage peer group focus around the antics of pretty and rich young things. It's not really surprising that when I play Runescape I am reminded of the school yard - I have been mocked for my stats, for my spelling, and for not having the 'right armour' (the last one amused me the most). Many children have yet to acquire an understanding of the social norms that constrain such behaviour. Bullying is rife in the school yard too - shall we keep our children away from there?

 

 

 

No. We do not. What we do is tell our children how to look after themselves. We tell them not to talk to strangers. We tell them to tell their teachers if they're getting bullied. We give them advice and support, and let them choose. The world is fundamentally unsafe, and the best any loving parent can do is minimise the risk to their children by making sure that their child knows the best way to act.

 

 

 

Qeltar's argument really falls down when he attempts to extend it to Runescape. Unlike the school yard, bullies can be switched off. If every parent whose child plays Runescape told them that if anyone made them unhappy to right-click them and hit the 'Ignore' button, I suspect we'd have a better community. Jagex has provided the tools to allow children a game experience uninterrupted by bullying - it's the responsibility of the parent to make sure that the children know how to best use those tools.

[ego_scorpion]

Adamfostas, I bow my head before you. To date the response you have posted is by far the most throughout well articulated of all that I read. You hit the nail on the head on every point and phrase it very well beyond any shadow of the doubt.

 

 

 

I would also like to point out that your anologies are very nice and accurate. All I can say is "WoW", very nice post indeed.

[idunedain]

Adamfostas, I bow my head before you. To date the response you have posted is by far the most throughout well articulated of all that I read. You hit the nail on the head on every point and phrase it very well beyond any shadow of the doubt.

 

+1

 

 

 

I totally agree with you, Adamfostas. Yes, Qeltar's idea is good in theory, police the internet, police runescape, make them a safe environment for our children. But in practice not everyone plays buy the rules. No matter how hard you try, there will always be some trying to abuse the system, to go around the rules, for whatever ends they have in mind. The solution? Be able to react appropriately to them. Or in the case of parents, prepare your children for this. No matter how hard you try to protect your children, sooner or later they will still need to face "bad" situations by themselves.

 

 

 

I'll give another analogy as well. I have recently had my driving licence and I remember a "lesson" learned during my driving classes. When I had green light I was passing through intersections without too much bother, knowing the others have red light. Till one day when one came from my left with high speed after having crossed a red light. Nothing bad happened, but my instructor calmly explained me that when driving you have to be careful at what the others do too, not only to you. You cannot assume everyone will drive by the book, be sure "bad situations" will occur sooner or later.

 

 

 

That's how life goes... going on a crusade against rule-breakers and abusers might help from time to time, I won't deny it. But it is seldom enough.

 

 

 

Anyway, my 2 cents worth...

[epeeflecher]

Wow....you guys have on life...just like her...sadness.

[ego_scorpion]

Adamfostas, I bow my head before you. To date the response you have posted is by far the most throughout well articulated of all that I read. You hit the nail on the head on every point and phrase it very well beyond any shadow of the doubt.

 

+1

 

 

 

I totally agree with you, Adamfostas. Yes, Qeltar's idea is good in theory, police the internet, police runescape, make them a safe environment for our children. But in practice not everyone plays buy the rules. No matter how hard you try, there will always be some trying to abuse the system, to go around the rules, for whatever ends they have in mind. The solution? Be able to react appropriately to them. Or in the case of parents, prepare your children for this. No matter how hard you try to protect your children, sooner or later they will still need to face "bad" situations by themselves.

 

 

 

I'll give another analogy as well. I have recently had my driving licence and I remember a "lesson" learned during my driving classes. When I had green light I was passing through intersections without too much bother, knowing the others have red light. Till one day when one came from my left with high speed after having crossed a red light. Nothing bad happened, but my instructor calmly explained me that when driving you have to be careful at what the others do too, not only to you. You cannot assume everyone will drive by the book, be sure "bad situations" will occur sooner or later.

 

 

 

That's how life goes... going on a crusade against rule-breakers and abusers might help from time to time, I won't deny it. But it is seldom enough.

 

 

 

Anyway, my 2 cents worth...

 

 

 

Another nicely articulated post. I just have 1 comment.

 

Even if people wanted to, internet police does not seem possible or reasonable. Furthermore, if such a mechanism was in place I can pretty much gurantee that the number of internet users and communities would severely decrease.

 

 

 

Nor would such police change the lives of severely depressed children. Unfortuantely, all these people need is a trigger. Btw, after viewing some videos of the interview with the mother I have to say considering the fact that she lost her child she did a mighty fine job with her hair and makeup and didnt look that upset to me. The crusade she is trying to start seems to be a means of seeking attentnion, atleast thats how I see it im sorry if you dont agree.

 

 

 

Lastly, qeltar, w are trying to have a civil discussion here, either contribute or please stop trying to get it locked, thank you.

[qeltar]

Wow....you guys have on life...just like her...sadness.

 

 

 

I again respectfully request that a mod please lock this thread. Thank you.

[QueenValerie]

Locked~ On Authors request.... Again another good thread locked because some users just have to spam it up. :XD: