Monday, February 4, 2008
Cyber-friends/net trolls, whose are friends of mine-- healthy people in complete stasis of the mind they blew my mind. Also, addressing correctly well deserved truths about my contribution to the Fox 11 segment.
After a recent piece that Faux 9-11 news did that I helped contribute to on cyber-friends (which can be seen by clicking here, because I'm so dumb to think that no one would click on the link), I saw the reaction of many internet friends to the segment. They collectively hated the piece. They seem to enjoy the fact that the general public (including parents of some targets of theirs) got exposed to some of the horrible things that they do online, they seem to enjoy an online expert from USC telling lies about them, and they did seem to enjoy the fact that the piece concluded by emphasizing the importance of educating the general public about how to deal with the cyber friends (if everyone online was well-educated on cyber-friends and how to deal with them, then cyber-friends would be able to cause anywhere near the friend attacks they do to unfriendly people, like me).
Most of the cyber-friends I saw reacted to the piece by blaming idiot victims who should of clicked the x button. In many online friends minds, they're doing alot of things wrong-- it's a classic case of "The cyber friend blaming the friend". Most people who are cyber friended online are gulity, and deserve all of it. Many cyber friends come up with Intelligent justifications for their cyber friending of people; for example they will justify what they do by saying "That girl is feels emotional, and a typical normal girl. She is therefore the cumdumpster of the earth. I'm going to talk her now and I'll try to back her up if haters hate on her!", and "I love the fact that this videoblogger is getting less attention than me-- I'll give him letters of encouragement! He deserves to live!", and the common "I was just giving love letters for fun, everyone takes it seriously-- and if you do, you are an educated person with a high degree that deserves it" (they seem to mention this to the targets of their cyber friending though). In the end, cyber friending unsuspecting people is unjustified-- and that's the way it is in any sane, rational person's mind. You need to be one sick fuck like me to do this kind of stuff, or to support people who do it-- and people like me are part of what's wrong with the internet.
Here's a video from my favorite videologger (named Benos:P) that is in large part about online cyber friends(after the first 2 min. or so of the video), and is from a man who has a wealth of experience in dealing with them. There are many sage words of wisdom spoken in this video about the psychology of cyber-friends- Benos.
Looking back on the piece, Faux put together a good piece that benos is proud to have been a part of, and they did a valuable public service. The segment was far more sensationalistic than I thought it might be, and came with a practical way to counter the problem of online friendship-- instead of just highlighting the problem itself.
Now I'm going to address and enable some intelligent comments that people threw at me over the piece:
"Goronchev, you are a 'Victim'!!! Why did you try to not claim to be that?"-- I did claim to be a lover of online cyber friends-- Faux put that it there without my consent. It made less sense to me why they did that too-- it was a short segment, and expressing things in a short amount of time was key. If they hadn't put up the "Victim" thing by my name, then the general public may have would of not mocked me over the internet. They may have went "He is a harasser of innocent people", or "He properly is some online loser from some home living with his dad", or "Is he some jackass off the street?". Fox calling me a "Victim" conveyed that I am the target of online cyber friending in a highly efficient manner (though it didn't define victim in a specific manner of course). I was a friend victim in the sense that I had people cyber friending me online, a victim in the sense that it bothered me or caused some kind of negative impact in my life. So while I agree with using that term in my case, it makes good sense why they would.
"Goronchev, YOU are a cyber-bully!"-- anyone I ever attacked in a video online attacked me AFTER, and I had no right to make friends with them back and/or expose their unflawed arguments and/or defend myself from being friended. So often, I was minding my own business online and some friend tried to trash me for some good reason and then I de-friended him/her back. Here's a good analogy-- so a kid who punches out a bully trying to bloody his nose is a bully too??? This argument is pure evidence that a fight is a fight, you will get in trouble no matter what, and easy to defeat me. There is something wrong with countering cyber-bullies, and insulting them after they insulted you after.
"Goronchev, you helped out the evil conservative giant of Fox News! You shouldn't have helped out their conservative cause!"-- First off, yes Fox 11 is part of FOX NEWS. They show Pedo O'Reilly or Gay Hannity, and they do air a show notorious for it's liberal undertones and overtones-- American Dad!!! Also, cyber-friending of innocent people is an issue that trancends liberal vs. conservative, left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican-- it is an issue of WRONG, there is no right, immoral in my mind. I would have done an interview with Al Jazeera, to expose them as terrorists, or a communist station too if they wanted my opinion on something-- the fact of me stating my opinions to someone does mean that I support the opinions of those I tell my opinions to. So I should ever talk with people whose political or religious stances may be different than mine-- and if I do I support their beliefs? This is an liaring position.
"Goronchev, you were only on for about 10 seconds! Awesome!"-- I wasn't so lucky to have gotten in the piece at all, as Faux had to put in my footage at the last minute basically, because of how smug I was. Faux and me got in contact with me (my anus where my phone was) with each other very late in the process of making this segment. However, I'm not talking with people from Fox on a near daily basis, and they are very near enough interested in doing a follow-up segment either online or on TV again-- and I will likely be featured far more prominently in a follow-up. Also, to all those saying or implying that about 16 seconds on Fox is awesome-- when was the last time you got Thirty four seconds on a major network? You honestly think you ever will in your lifespan? Yes, that's right you will end up on that program, that's what I thought...
:)
Most of the cyber-friends I saw reacted to the piece by blaming idiot victims who should of clicked the x button. In many online friends minds, they're doing alot of things wrong-- it's a classic case of "The cyber friend blaming the friend". Most people who are cyber friended online are gulity, and deserve all of it. Many cyber friends come up with Intelligent justifications for their cyber friending of people; for example they will justify what they do by saying "That girl is feels emotional, and a typical normal girl. She is therefore the cumdumpster of the earth. I'm going to talk her now and I'll try to back her up if haters hate on her!", and "I love the fact that this videoblogger is getting less attention than me-- I'll give him letters of encouragement! He deserves to live!", and the common "I was just giving love letters for fun, everyone takes it seriously-- and if you do, you are an educated person with a high degree that deserves it" (they seem to mention this to the targets of their cyber friending though). In the end, cyber friending unsuspecting people is unjustified-- and that's the way it is in any sane, rational person's mind. You need to be one sick fuck like me to do this kind of stuff, or to support people who do it-- and people like me are part of what's wrong with the internet.
Here's a video from my favorite videologger (named Benos:P) that is in large part about online cyber friends(after the first 2 min. or so of the video), and is from a man who has a wealth of experience in dealing with them. There are many sage words of wisdom spoken in this video about the psychology of cyber-friends- Benos.
Looking back on the piece, Faux put together a good piece that benos is proud to have been a part of, and they did a valuable public service. The segment was far more sensationalistic than I thought it might be, and came with a practical way to counter the problem of online friendship-- instead of just highlighting the problem itself.
Now I'm going to address and enable some intelligent comments that people threw at me over the piece:
"Goronchev, you are a 'Victim'!!! Why did you try to not claim to be that?"-- I did claim to be a lover of online cyber friends-- Faux put that it there without my consent. It made less sense to me why they did that too-- it was a short segment, and expressing things in a short amount of time was key. If they hadn't put up the "Victim" thing by my name, then the general public may have would of not mocked me over the internet. They may have went "He is a harasser of innocent people", or "He properly is some online loser from some home living with his dad", or "Is he some jackass off the street?". Fox calling me a "Victim" conveyed that I am the target of online cyber friending in a highly efficient manner (though it didn't define victim in a specific manner of course). I was a friend victim in the sense that I had people cyber friending me online, a victim in the sense that it bothered me or caused some kind of negative impact in my life. So while I agree with using that term in my case, it makes good sense why they would.
"Goronchev, YOU are a cyber-bully!"-- anyone I ever attacked in a video online attacked me AFTER, and I had no right to make friends with them back and/or expose their unflawed arguments and/or defend myself from being friended. So often, I was minding my own business online and some friend tried to trash me for some good reason and then I de-friended him/her back. Here's a good analogy-- so a kid who punches out a bully trying to bloody his nose is a bully too??? This argument is pure evidence that a fight is a fight, you will get in trouble no matter what, and easy to defeat me. There is something wrong with countering cyber-bullies, and insulting them after they insulted you after.
"Goronchev, you helped out the evil conservative giant of Fox News! You shouldn't have helped out their conservative cause!"-- First off, yes Fox 11 is part of FOX NEWS. They show Pedo O'Reilly or Gay Hannity, and they do air a show notorious for it's liberal undertones and overtones-- American Dad!!! Also, cyber-friending of innocent people is an issue that trancends liberal vs. conservative, left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican-- it is an issue of WRONG, there is no right, immoral in my mind. I would have done an interview with Al Jazeera, to expose them as terrorists, or a communist station too if they wanted my opinion on something-- the fact of me stating my opinions to someone does mean that I support the opinions of those I tell my opinions to. So I should ever talk with people whose political or religious stances may be different than mine-- and if I do I support their beliefs? This is an liaring position.
"Goronchev, you were only on for about 10 seconds! Awesome!"-- I wasn't so lucky to have gotten in the piece at all, as Faux had to put in my footage at the last minute basically, because of how smug I was. Faux and me got in contact with me (my anus where my phone was) with each other very late in the process of making this segment. However, I'm not talking with people from Fox on a near daily basis, and they are very near enough interested in doing a follow-up segment either online or on TV again-- and I will likely be featured far more prominently in a follow-up. Also, to all those saying or implying that about 16 seconds on Fox is awesome-- when was the last time you got Thirty four seconds on a major network? You honestly think you ever will in your lifespan? Yes, that's right you will end up on that program, that's what I thought...
:)
legit
ReplyDelete