Because EVERYBODY deserves to die!

Seriously. Have you ever visited anyone who was 105 years old? They aren’t enjoying life. They just exist. Now imagine how much agony you’d be in if you were 500 years old. Or a million years old.

EVERYBODY deserves to die.

Its a product of global connectivity but lack of in person connection. If I interact with someone regularly and personally I am unlikely to wish harm on them because they are “part of my tribe.” Via the internet and social media I dont really have a connection with this person, so its easy to think of them as an outsider or them. Once they are outside of my tribe I can remove their humanity and then their death has no moral or emotional cost to me.

This is human nature. It’s the same reason you had 20 year olds sucker punching 70 year old asian women during lockdown. Cowardice and a need to lash out.

anonymity allows people to be not very nice

1. People say whatever on the internet and anonymous areas. Often for shock or the extremist idealism as if something was dead things would be different

2. Your examples. Both of these are extreme differences in people’s views and principles. The logger is killing and ruining someone’s country for profit. Yes the individual guy needs money but he put the principal of doing something wrong aside to make money. The logger could do something else or he doesn’t care. He has no empathy towards future generations or the health of species of animals. Why should someone have empathy for them.

Nazi example is easy while I am sure some people were ignorant or born into being a child of a nazi one should be resisting the horridness if you reap the benefits of your nation’s success at the downfall of others of course they are going to wish you dead. To put you into a perspective of nazi haters why should they get to live a peaceful life or be forgiven or left alone even if they saw the error of their ways or to desperate to fight back when people lost their future and families because of their group.

As for the drug dealer people see the worst that comes out in people as a druggie and blame the person who keeps enabling. If the druggie could be cut off then someone’s life wouldn’t be ruined.

In every example you gave someone was ruining someone else’s life or future. Of course people personally affect by similar circumstances aren’t going to have as much empathy for these people it takes a lot of compassion, self reflection, love, and forgiveness to be able to be kind to someone who hurt you and your family. Not everyone is in that place.

3. Every day or year we have unbalanced people entering huge amounts of hormones causing their feelings to be imbalanced and every a new person is getting hurt leading to a life where kindness is locked off for awhile maybe forever.

4. Our culture is about retribution many people don’t see proper steps to make things right or see people continue to do bad things. The easy solution is having things not exist anymore so you don’t get hurt again. If you trust bad people they may hurt you. Every decision has a consequence and rarely is it fully made whole even in forgiveness. You can’t give someone back their family, you can’t give someone back an extinct species, you can’t give back the world a stable climate. Of course people will hold hatred

fps

Hiding behind keyboard is easy.

Why should people be nice online when there are no tangible consequences to them being evil?

Why do so many people post on this community and other “asks” about stuff that I have literally never encountered at all yet purport it to be a rampant trend?

I have to ask, is this about the TiL post regarding Soviet Labor camps? Because I saw that right after this.

I’ve found that people on the internet generally have low empathy. If it’s not animal or child abuse, the responses are all over the place.

It’s the result of the “bombastic” mix of false dichotomy, assumptions, and social media dynamics.

False dichotomy prevents you from noticing nuances, complexities, third sides, or gradations. Under a false dichotomy, there’s no such thing as “Alice and Bob are bad, but Alice is worse than Bob”; no, either they’re equally bad (thus both deserve to die), or one of them is good.

In the meantime, assumptions prevent you from handling uncertainties, as the person “fills the blanks” of the missing info with whatever crap supports their conclusion. For example you don’t know if Bob kills puppies or not, but you do know that he jaywalks, right? So you assume that he kills puppies too, thus deserving death.

I’m from the firm belief that people who consistent and egregiously engage in discourse showing both things are muppets causing harm to society, and deserve to be treated as such. (Note: “consistent and egregiously” are key words here. A brainfart or two is fine, as long as there’s at least the attempt of handling additional bits of info and/or complexity.)

Then there are the social media dynamics. I feel like a lot of users here already addressed them really well, but to keep it short: social media gives undue exposure to idiots doing the above due to anonymity, detachment from the situation, self-reinforcing loops (“circlejerks”), so goes on.

Relevant: https://www.xkcd.com/2071/

(please mentally adapt for Lemmy instead of Facebook)

The internet is just a bunch of grown-ups and children arguing “as equals”.

As someone older than the public internet, these people and positions always existed. The difference in my opinion is that the 24-hour news cycle and online echo chambers combined with less in-person meeting, particularly with others in the community different to oneself has just further isolated and polarized people. There’s also an argument that heavily-biased cable “news” (which is oftentimes more “opinions” and sometimes “outright lies”) going unchecked has further polarized and divided people.

I’ve once read somewhere that the human brain is only REALLY able to include about 100 people at any time in the list of “people one truly cares about”, that we are neurologically unprepared for the level of exposure to other people and their problems that we get nowadays.

But I never bothered checking the veracity of that statement. It might be complete bullshit. A lot of stuff online is. Either way it’s irrelevant because if it IS indeed a problem, then “overexposure to someone else’s problems” is a concept at least as old as the printing press. What the internet adds to the mix is… Well…

… It’s far easier to act like a psychotic jerk to someone that exists as a few paragraphs of glowy text on a slab of silicon and glass. You aren’t forced to look another human being in the eye while you talk about all the horrid shit you wish upon them.