On so many different news items, threads, etc. People are the first to claim pretty much anyone who has made a mistake, or does something they disagree with deserves to die.

Like, do some people not have the capability to empathise and realise they might have been in a similar place if they were born in a different environment…

I genuinely understand, you think a politician who has lead to countless deaths, a war criminal, or a mass rapists deserves to die.

But here people say it for stuff that falls way below the bar.

A contracted logger of a rainforest (who knows if they have the money / opportunity to support their family another way). Deserves to die.

A civilian of Nazi germany of whom we know nothing about their collaboration/agreement with the regime. Deserves to die.

Some person who was a drug dealer and then served their time. Deserves to die.

Like I don’t get it? Are people not able to imagine the kind of situations that create these people, and that it’s not impossible to imagine the large majority of people in these positions if born in a different environment?

  • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Hiding behind keyboard is easy.

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

    • mecfs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 days ago

      Because it isn’t just “nice” not to kill people for these things. It’s what you’d expect that large majority of people to think.

      • other_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        I’m with you on the confusion because it’s like… I don’t feel the need to act this way, why do other people? What drives them that, in a void, they resort to these thoughts and behaviors? Is this who they really are, or is it an act, like doing an evil playthrough in a game. “I want to because I can here, and I can’t anywhere else?”

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Life is cheap on the internet, because people feel far removed (and/or “above it”). Social media “engagement” algorithms divide and isolate people from each other.

    (I think as far as Lemmy is concerned, it’s just spillover / remnant behaviors from that stuff. There’s no engagement algorithm here other than what we bring in ourselves.)

    Here are a some studies on it from people a lot smarter than me. (Note these are more about general toxicity and hate speech and not zeroed in on your exact question, but they may be helpful).

    https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744614/full

    https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11547/10076

    https://scholars.org/contribution/countering-online-toxicity-and-hate-speech

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-021-00787-4

    This one looks at the “why” question from a political POV:

    https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/11/pgad382/7405434?login=false

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 days ago

    We’ve been transitioning from a dignity culture to a victimhood/outrage culture for most of my adult life. The relevant one here is the outrage culture, where people are trying their damnedest to be the most outraged. Nothing shows that you are more are outraged by something than suggesting that someone should die for being in disagreement with you.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Part of it is that purity tests are at an all time high. In large part because we are constantly inundated with Content to reinforce our world views (or the world view of the Influencer we glommed on to) constantly. So anything different is not just cognitive dissonance: it is an attack on our very core and a lie. So if someone does something we wouldn’t do? They are the evilest of evil people and are knowingly hurting whoever we care about.

    But the other aspect? The internet is a great place to meet people with different life experiences. And in a lot of cases (particularly with certain politicians), we and the people we love have been directly harmed by them. All that steven universe bullshit about needing to love everyone and always finding the good goes out the window when you are increasingly watching organizations try to murder you for embracing who you are and to enslave people and turn them into breeding stock.

    And the last aspect is that lemmy has a really bad infestation of tankies. Tankies who, useful idiots or intentional, tend to actively argue for destabilizing The West and increasing conflicts. So advocating for terrorism and murder helps with that.

    • mecfs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Appreciated your answers both on this thread and the soviet war crimes thread. Thank you.

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    Because it’s a bit of an echo chamber and people get too involved in stuff with anonymity. You will find this sort of social behaviour all over the internet and from any “camp”. It’s just bad people.

  • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Most people are led by emotions rather than cold and analytical reasoning. I believe everyone has the capability to think objectively but that capability gets clouded when ever they’re taken capture by strong emotions. That’s why they can reasonably consider an abstract but difficult trolley problem but then lose their minds when Elon says something stupid on Twitter.

    I want to believe that the majority of people around me would infact not want to cast death sentences haphazardly like that but rather they’re just expressing how they feel. It’s a way to signal to the group. “Elon is a nazi and deserves to die” roughly tanslates to “boo Elon”

    He who is without sin can cast the first stone.

    • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think you are right. I wanted to add that often times people will have a strong sense of justice or revenge and want to see something bad happen to a person who did bad things.

      Other times when people call for someone’s death, it’s because they don’t believe that there is any other way to stop the harm that person is causing. This tends to be the case when political figures start violating the civil and human rights of their constituents.

  • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 days ago

    It’s a psychological consequence of polarization, which occurs when you have too many people in a social group agreeing with each other.

    Groupthink elevates extreme opinions.

  • netvor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 days ago

    Along with other things said here, people tend to “forget” that there’s a real person on the other end.

    I vaguely recall Nicholas Christakis talking about a study they made, where they created a bot which would simply remind people of the fact that there’s a real person on the other end, and they found that it would help. (That study was done in some university platform and is centuries old in internet time, though. I think he spoke about it about 6 years ago on podcast with Sam Harris.)

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    They are children, or act like them.

    Jumping to absolutes is generally the wrong move.

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    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.