Internet and sadism

Why is there a correlation between internet activities and sadism? We usually think of sadism as the extreme behavior of people like picrel but there's also an everyday regular sadism that many normal people engage in online. Footage from war zones and crime scenes are not only politicized but consumed as entertainment. There are no shortage of memes and videos celebrating and mocking the deaths of soldiers in Ukraine or civilians in Gaza. Gore sites and imageboards were filled with people mocking the dead and cheering on people dying in accidents or crimes with no political motive. The normal side of the wired is filled with people who mock the disabled, minorities, hillbillies and rednecks, anyone they see as lesser than themselves while media pundits love to play mental gymnastics to justify murder. People use the internet to rat each other out, defame and slander others, mean girls type behavior, attack people for no real reason, backbiting, cheering on people's downfall. And then there are murderers and rapists who post death related content online. People seem to get a kick out of negative content and like to hurt and stigmatize others, from Twitter mobs harassing people to the extremes of gore forums filled with decapitated children. This behavior seemed to be a lot less common in the past. Cruelty was there but the culture of backbiting and taking pleasure in the suffering of others was not considered normal. Why is the internet full of sadistic behavior? If sadists were a mentally ill minority, why are they so common online? Why is cruel and vindictive behavior so popular online?

>>42786 >why are people bad idk dawg

>>42786 >This behavior seemed to be a lot less common in the past. No it wasn't. Vikings essentially went to raid England and Finland just for, what today people would call, "soykafs and giggles" and "griefing". Before internet it manifested as kids genociding ants, whispering nasty things to other kids about the ones lower than them in the pecking order, breaking windows and snowmen, and as adults punching nerds and women in the face, passive aggressive snark or casually colonizing Kenya. The only difference is that there exists a medium on which people can reveal almost without censure all the ugliness of the world (and of the human species, in particular) which up until now was relatively invisible, and a spying infrastructure that never sleeps, recording and backing it up for everyone to see, and especially for all the normal peeps who are bored by the mundanity of modern life to consume in order to break away from the tired normalcy. It's nothing new under the sun.

>>42788 Most ordinary people weren't Viking raiders or colonizing soldiers but ordinary farmers and while bullying is as old as people, it seems like negative behavior is more or less rewarded or seen as ordinary now. I guess common is not the right word. Its more widespread. Even high school bullies in the past covered up their behavior and it wasn't socially acceptable to slander or tear people down out in the open without consequences.

>>42786 It has nothing to do with the internet. Let me remind you that before the 1900s, bull baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, and public executions were considered good entertainment in most of the western world. If anything, the late 20th century is the weird anomaly where these more ancient spectacles were somewhat taboo, and shock websites and twitter weren't a thing.

>>42789 You are right, most people weren't Viking raiders, but most people either were the Muslims stoning and slaving other people or watching as the moral authorities hacked the sinners into pieces, the Christian peasants aggregating into the village or town center to witness the burnings and executions of the people who were deemed as witches and heretics, or Spartans culling their slave population literally for sport. The open secret is that people weren't forced to witness (or, in some cases, take part in) these atrocities most of the time, but came of their free volition to "just see the show". Before all that it was the Romans having their curiosity with gore satiated in their coliseums. And before that it was the Persians who were decorating their monoliths with the skins of the enemies they had flayed, not to mention the sacrificial frenzies which the Aztecs had going on at the other end of the world. And let's not forget the absolutely insane scale of war and conquest done by the Mongols and Chinese in Asia, and the Hellens in the Middle-East. These wouldn't have been possible unless the "average person" weren't enabling, sympathetic or actively taking part in it all. The very same gleefully destructive impulse today hides behind all the things that were mentioned in the OP. In comparison to what was before, the prevalent sadism of today is first and foremost psychological in its nature, as opposed to physical. Moreover, all wars bring out the worst of people, and the feelings of justified (not claiming they actually are myself, just saying how they see it) anger and hostility between Ukrainians and Russians on the one hand, and the Israelis and the whole Muslim world all becomes quite self-explanatory (and if you've ever had an enemy in your life, you'd understand what makes people go absolutely batshit crazy to such a degree they'd call the enemy combatant's relatives just to torment them). And if the nazis and soviets had cell phones back then, I bet they would've sent screen caps and live video feed of the enemy fighters' bodies being defiled and desecrated to the families of the deceased, but they had to settle for posters, movies and leaflets, and of course, the actual bodies of the enemy combatants being defiled (pic related, and there's lots more, but I won't go there, and the pic will suffice nvm wasn't accepted to post). Even the fuarrrking animal kingdom is absolutely god damn demented when you notice cats and dogs playing with their prey irl. At any rate, I admit there might be a "monkey see, monkey do" type of situation going around nowadays, with social media normalizing all this soykaf. >Even high school bullies in the past covered up their behavior In my school they did not. God, I'm so pissed. fuarrrk this gayass world

>>42791 >Muuh christians bad. Go fvck yourself, dumb f4ggot nigger!

>>42795 Funny that you singled out the cult of Yeshua ben Yosef, but had no problem with me calling out one of the other three Abrahamic religions for its evident Satanistic practices, although they share of the same pool of diarrhea. Go back to your containment board you hypocritical fuarrrkwit, why dontcha?

>>42786 Pornographic voyeurism. There's probably an evolutionary trait passed down to humans that results in us taking pleasure in suffering. Normally, this death drive is dormant, surfacing only under strict conditions, but the internet allows us to consume suffering the way we fap to images of people fuarrrking. It titillates that drive and encourages it causing something like pornsickness: sociopathic bloodlust for negativity. >>42791 The idea the middle ages/Abrahamic religions are uniquely bloody is a self-congratulating myth. The thread that unites sacrificial victims, criminals being executed, enemy villages, and slaves is that, on paper at least, all had done something to merit being killed whereas today people are perfectly content to attack and soykaf on people who've done nothing to them.

>>42798 >The idea the middle ages/Abrahamic religions are uniquely bloody is a self-congratulating myth No, not *uniquely*. I never said that nor implied it (why on Earth would I otherwise bring up the brutality of Aztecs or Assyrians, if not to make a larger point?) What is it with this Christc*ckst hangup everyone seems to be having all of the sudden?

>>42795 dangit you illiterate dirt eating nigger retard you read through his post and that's what you came up with ? muh 'he insulted le based christerinos by calling dem violent' hell yeah they're violent and so is everybody else and you should be arguing for why thats OK or something not this idiotic drivel. I'd tell you to go fuarrrk yourself, but my suspicion is that your impotence goes so deep that that may be an impossible request, so I'll just tell you to learn to read.

>>42799 Point being, the past was probably less brutal because the means to pack people onto trains and gas them or blow up entire cities with HE wasn't really doable. Now we have the means to do it and broadcast it for the audience watching at home.

>>42801 >the past was probably less brutal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingchi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poena_cullei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaying#Historical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement >>42786 Sadistic people exist and are probably drawn to the internet because it enables them to do sadistic stuff free of punishment, a lot of them don't derive joy from much else so they will waste a lot of time doing sadistic stuff. You ignore the fact that 99% of internet usage is banal, just look at all the miscellaneous threads on this site as an example. I don't see sadistic stuff on the internet very often, probably because I dont focus on it and dont participate in parts of the web that have it. I also don't think that making jokes about tragic events mocks the victims.

>>42801 Well that is something I can agree with (though I've also heard the argument that wars becoming less frequent due to their devastation might average it out in the long run and come closer to the death tolls of decades worth of waging war in the good ol' times, but I cant remember the details or estimates, so I cant confirm any of it). But with modern technologies we have only just began unearthening the horrors we can create and unleash upon the world, like with whatever the Chinese are cooking with their off-limits genome banks, biolaboratoried and related declarations of "newer, humaner methods of war".

>>42802 Is crushing someone with an elephant really more brutal than sarin gas, depleted uranium shells, vaporizing civilians with atomic bombs or flamethrowers? Have you seen what a landmine does to the human body? All of those were legal punishments for crimes. I go online and I can see normal people from country A laughing at the war dead of some other country they have no connection with. Why? I see people making underhanded arguments that X or Y group of people deserve to die or be put in cages and left to rot, again people they have never met and live a world away. The most normal Twitter users don't hesitate to tear someone down for no reason and there's the dozens of times Redditors have persecuted innocent people for no good reason. Nobody stopped and said, wait what's the evidence this guy was the Boston bomber? As soon as a target was painted on someone's back they all rushed to tear that person and their family down as fast as possible for clout. Social media loves a good witch hunt. It really does seem that humans get a kick out of destroying things, but this clearly isn't innate to us as children so where does it come from and why is it so widespread on the internet?

>>42804 >but this clearly isn't innate to us as children wait what is it possible you were drugged or dropped on the head or something, kids I knew were gleeful in torturing animals and insects and we certainly considered the possibility of doing violence on other humans including our peers. Too much supervision+ineptitude+fleeting interest to make it happen, but if you polled my 3rd grade class, well the boys anyway, you'd have a huge majority supporting executions, and I expect most would be agreeable to public ones. And there's obviously just a fascination with violence that I certainly had as a kid and I think many do, hard not to watch, its titillating like little else. Yesterday we had public executions, last week gladiatorial combat, today we have violent tv shows and video games, everyone loves it, always have. I expect nowadays more people die by violence, but that's because there's more people now, and the proportion is far lower. We have neat weapons but don't use them much.

>>42786 Greater Internet fuarrrkwad Theory

>Why is there a correlation between internet activities and sadism? Is there? I feel that sadists are just more visible now that they can anonymoosely talk about it without fear of backlash.

Give people a safe, insulating shield to hide behind, and some anonymity, and they feel freer to be themselves. Eg, want to see a person's real personality? Let him drive a car. Want to see what real scum some people are? Put them on the internet. The problem is, they get used to the fantasy world of the internet, then they go out in public and try to act the same way, and get their teeth knocked out ther asses and/or arrested.

>>42806 This right here, even before the internet children were currel monsters, the things they do to each other proves that adults are just children better at building moral constructs and pretending. If you observe children you will notice from a very young age their personality and behaviour is already ingrained in them you can already tell how their life will turn out. You can see their raw crude vileness in so many things that adults wouldnt even go so low, children are direct and violent while adults are evasive and passive agressive. Humans are born as violent monsters as >>42791 pointed out so well, by default people will cherish and enjoy this, it is only when they are baited with morality into social order that they pretend to be empathic caring beings, the truth is almost everyone is a closet psycho and the few poor losers who arent are victims from birth. Morality and ethics have always just been tools for social manipulation and the people have played along to benefit even tho theyr asses were all on the line, they all just hoped to get trough and profit. Todays technology and social standards simply dont allow anymore to hide those things, the ones who pretend to be moral and social are being exposed at every turn and their scams are blowing up.

>>42801 Want of high explosives, poison gas, and trains didn't stop the Mongols. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_the_Khwarazmian_Empire

>>42813 why do you think being violent makes you a monster

>>42804 Yes because modern forms of killing do not emphasize pain or humiliation while all of these >>42802 do. Also keep in mind slavery has existed for most of recorded history.

>>42832 >slavery has existed through most of recorded history dare I say all >modern forms of killing do not emphasize pain or humiliation While I see what you're saying you can't tell me death by lethal injection or nitrogen suffocation isnt a horribly humiliating way to go. Stuffed with your state alloted fourty dollar last meal of your choice and then strapped to a bed where a just-squeaked-by-in-school nurse struggles to find a suitable vein on your arm so they can 'put you to sleep' after years of incarceration. I think I'd rather be sentenced to fighting lions in a stadium, or something. FWIW much of the point of some of these methods is not really the impression or effect it has on the victim but on the audience. Likewise for modern 'humane' methods.

>>42833 Jay, slavery doesn't exist Menard. Slavery does exist in the modern world very much your a slave to your technology right now.

>>42833 >While I see what you're saying you can't tell me death by lethal injection or nitrogen suffocation isnt a horribly humiliating way to go. I'm >>42788 >>42791 >>42803, and oh boy did this take an interesting turn. One could almost say we've come full circle. If we've established the fact that deep down in humanity's soul there's an impulse for destruction and an enjoyment in sadism, which explains the OP's conundrum, then the question becomes "which is the "better" form of thanatos: the savage, but passionate brutality and savagery of the old times, or the impassionate, uncaring but effective killing and extermination of today. I think it was Marquis de Sade who bemoaned the fact that the state takes away passion from murder and turns it into a "cold, calculated affair", but empathizing with the victim, I very much would prefer not being subjected to the whims of my worst enemy's fantasies. Then again, it was the impassionate logic of extermination, rather than the passionate and personal brutality of old times, which made the concentration camps happen. I know it's kind of a fuarrrked up thing to think and argue about, but I have to admit I kind of see the pros and cons of both camps between the positions of passionate brutality (>>42833 >>42802 >>42817) on the one hand, and impassionate slaughtering (>>42832 >>42801 >>42804 >>42806) on the other. I dunno. What do you guys think, is it better to be a victim of a passionate murder, like being thrown into the lion's den or being flayed alive by your archnemesis, or being just another number in a statistic, yet having it done as effectively as possible by a faceless, uncaring bureaucrat, if making the choice was unavoidable?

>>42834 Yeah, technology legally owns me and I literally do not have the right to decide when I eat.

>>42834 not sure what you mean but I'd just like to clarify that slavery exists today and always has thats what I meant by 'all [of history]'. >>42835 I think you have it backwards. All of the arguments I hear for lethal injection are (com)passionate; its painless, its calm, won't feel a thing. True ? IDK, but this isn't a case of trying to do things economically (you could just have ten bullets from the state police arsenal disappear and its practically a training expense), nor is it trying to do them reliably. There is something else going on there. Throwing convicts in a pit with lions, meanwhile is efficient. At one moment you get great popular entertainment and executions, and save a little on lion chow to boot. Its not unreliable, and basically free if you're already doing shows like that. Were it not for the scandal it would cause, if states started doing this nowadays I imagine you could actually make money on executions just from ticket sales, using already available animals and stadia. Is that not the more efficient, dispassionate path ? Im not saying the Romans used lions because they were mercilessly efficient, so much as pointing out that there's an ideology going on here in the modern system which is clearly not merciless efficiency. Which returns me to thinking about the term dispassion. For the term I suppose is not about the absence of passion so much as the dissing of passion, my brief etymological dig into it suggests that 'dis' ultimately is a bastardized version of 'two', probably as in breaking-in-two, so what we have is 'cleavepassion' or something akin to it. Dispassion is not emotionless, it is itself the spirit of des[another derivative of the term]truction of passion. So perhaps that is what we have. Violent death at the hands of lions may be efficient or not but it is exciting and spirited in a way that the medicalized sanitized death by potassium salt under anesthesia stifles entirely. Perhaps that is what we have societally, passion for dispassion.

>>42840 >Which returns me to thinking about the term dispassion. For the term I suppose is not about the absence of passion so much as the dissing of passion, my brief etymological dig into it suggests that 'dis' ultimately is a bastardized version of 'two', probably as in breaking-in-two, so what we have is 'cleavepassion' or something akin to it. Dispassion is not emotionless, it is itself the spirit of des[another derivative of the term]truction of passion. That's the stupidest distortion of the meaning of "dispassion" I've ever seen anywhere. And, unfortunately, the rest of your drivel make no better sense.

>>42833 I guess its different kinds of humiliation, like >>42835 says. I can't say which is better. Maybe theres some sick form of validation one might get from understanding that their pain *means* something to someone, even if it only is amusement like the case of gladiators. At the very least, it makes sense why you're being hurt or killed, compared to the a lethal injection where its not entirely obvious why anyone in particular wants you dead. Like if any of the people in the entire process get the order to let you go, they would because they don't actually care what happens to you.

>>42841 thanks I made it myself

I developed some type of internet anxiety because I watched some particularly bad gore. I've never liked it, I shouldn't have tried to prove myself anything, but I did and now I'm a more fragile person. Because of this I'm not able to engage with most of the internet that I used to enjoy. I can't go on 4chan, kiwifarms, discord or anything like that because I don't feel safe. I don't want to have social media with my face on it and I don't like reddit. I have a twitter but I just follow Ukraine stuff. I mostly just want to informally discuss random stuff online, mostly tech and politics, in constant blue board mode. Can anyone here suggest a place for that besides lainchan?

>>43136 So you want to hear about war without seeing anyone get hurt? Kinda hypocritical. If you're just interested in the overall status then just follow MSM, that's where all the twitter people get their info anyways.

>>42786 Internet is a very distorted reflection of the real world. The reason why people are like that, in my opinion, is a way to make up for one's inadequacies and insecurities. Seeing others suffer as well as inflicting it themselves, helps these people feel better about themselves. More capable and powerful. It's sad but these are the kinds of people that probably can't be fixed.

The internet is not making people more violent; it's just giving them tools to televise and very often get rewarded for their antisocial behaviors. It's making people more honest about their urges because things here are online, virtual. You'll not get punched in the face for calling someone a user online and sending them an image of a dismembered person. Very often you'll not get punished for driving them to suicide with your abuse, either. Internet is both beautiful and absolutely disgusting place.

>strg+f colosseum >nothing im disappointment in all of you

>>44827 >gladiators discussed >Romans and lions discussed buht aah wunt muh frigginn keeeeywuurd maaine

>>42786 I am not virtue signalling when I say that I think I am of a different time or perhaps just a different mindset than many I see. Sadism inherently disgusts me and I don't care what the justification is at all, I really don't care about what horrible things a person did to "deserve" it, don't bother with your "what about" questions. I'm not a pacifist, I believe in defending yourself and resisting tyranny, I believe in very radical things. But I would never kick someone while they're down. I could be put in a situation where I'd kill, but never in a situation where I would try to make it painful. Taking pleasure is suffering is ugly, it makes people look ugly, it makes me want nothing to do with them. There is no glory in spilled blood. Violence is an unfortunate tool and a dangerous one too, not only to the person on the receiving end but to yourself, as it can taint your soul.

>>42786 Violence makes you feel alive, that's how our brain works. After all, you could be next right? Better be ready. Smart peoples realized this a long time ago and use violence with a side of social psychology to sell you their products/ideologies etc, it's just super easy now with the internet Same soykaf with sex and porn >source : trust me bro

>>44823 100% this, people have been blaming other things like rock music, satanism, pretty much anything as long as they get a shot at deferring responsibility.

>>44827 >>strg+f colosseum >>nothing Actually, it WAS mentioned during the discussion, although only in passing. And spelled wrong. See >>42791.

Actual sadist here, I've been a semi-known instigator of picrel and other groups that I will not mention since my opsec was sloppy back then. I have a really high inhibition and the research on criminalistic forensics for physical events is a VERY funded business that you will likely not get by with ease, see how little serial killers there were after everyone started picking up on dashcams and the government managed to make CCTVs as cheap as possible for instance. There are too many risks that won't allow me to get on the level I want to be. I do still engage in low-risk sadism IRL like fake rumors whenever I can but if there's anything that carries a risk of being incarcerated and/or conned from society then I will steer as far as possible away from it. The reasons to why I've moved to the internet are: 1. it's very easy to avoid being linked to your real life personas if you know what you're doing, I've been really proficient with computers since the age of 12 and my interest in security and opsec started more than 10 years ago, I'm probably in an absurdly small percentage by now when it comes to knowledge of cryptography 2. indoctrination and instigation are both really easy when you acknowledge how many people online there are who feel bitter over how society has treated them, they feel like absolute outcasts and it's really easy to turn that into rage I'm not truly sure what causes this enjoyment for pain in all honesty, I'm too paranoid to talk to a professional about it, but I have been severely beaten as a kid. I do not see it as a sexual thing either, I'd say that a good bit of it is adrenaline and a whole lot is the unconsenting factor. Maybe I'm talking too much but I really doubt that this can get traced back to anything.

>>48106 Insecurity and jealousy would breed such things. Just try do extreme sports for a rush instead of making the world worse than it has to be. You are no different in mentality from whoever beat you as a kid if you continue on like this.