Musings on Race (Any other Black people on Dhammawheel?)

[Grigoris]

The difference being, in the "real world" there are repercussions for one's behavior that accrue to oneself. In the virtual world, a poster can spew vitriol with impunity and get away with it. IMO this allows people - those who are passive-aggressive in particular - to indulge their negative emotions without "real life" consequences.

I disagree. They are habituating themselves to certain patterns of behaviour. This has a direct impact on their mind stream. That IS reality.

[Sam Vara]

The difference being, in the "real world" there are repercussions for one's behavior that accrue to oneself. In the virtual world, a poster can spew vitriol with impunity and get away with it. IMO this allows people - those who are passive-aggressive in particular - to indulge their negative emotions without "real life" consequences.

I disagree. They are habituating themselves to certain patterns of behaviour. This has a direct impact on their mind stream. That IS reality.

I think I agree with both of you. The consequences of one's actions in the virtual world are certainly different (no immediate threat of violence; one can hide aspects of one's personality that are visible in face-to-face interactions; one can simply log off, or assume multiple identities) but they are equally real. One can cultivate one's greed, hatred, and delusions just as effectively on the internet as anywhere else. Often better. Real people are seldom as sexually compliant as porn stars, or as deluded as that nazi/commie/redneck/pervert who you love to hate on line. Kamma works differently in different settings, but it never stops working.

[No_Mind]

I think I agree with both of you. The consequences of one's actions in the virtual world are certainly different (no immediate threat of violence; one can hide aspects of one's personality that are visible in face-to-face interactions; one can simply log off, or assume multiple identities) but they are equally real. One can cultivate one's greed, hatred, and delusions just as effectively on the internet as anywhere else. Often better. Real people are seldom as sexually compliant as porn stars, or as deluded as that nazi/commie/redneck/pervert who you love to hate on line. Kamma works differently in different settings, but it never stops working.

So if I shoot someone in a video game (someone with an user_id) .. I have broken the first precept?

Note - I am not asking about effect of video games on youth and their tendency towards violence .. just a simple Yes/No ..is shooting someone dead while playing Call of Duty breaking the first precept as you suggested?

[Grigoris]

So if I shoot someone in a video game (someone with an user_id) .. I have broken the first precept?

Note - I am not asking about effect of video games on youth and their tendency towards violence .. just a simple Yes/No ..is shooting someone dead while playing Call of Duty breaking the first precept as you suggested?

They suggested nothing of the sort. You are engaging in straw man logical fallacies.

[binocular]

The difference being, in the "real world" there are repercussions for one's behavior that accrue to oneself. In the virtual world, a poster can spew vitriol with impunity and get away with it. IMO this allows people - those who are passive-aggressive in particular - to indulge their negative emotions without "real life" consequences.

I disagree.
For one, there is a whole political spectrum that spews vitriol left and right, up and down wherever they go, online or face to face, and they get away with it.
For two, I've never been told mean things on the internet that I wasn't told face to face; and face to face people said worse things to me than online.

[binocular]

If internet is same as real world .. why don't you and other members share more details?
I will answer it .. because internet is not the real world .. and same rules do not apply.

People don't share important "details" about themselves face to face either. Name, age, socioeconomic status etc. are actually not all that important. The truly relevant things are the ones one believes, one's values. Those are often the egregious, outrageous things that people rarely share face to face, but are more likely to say them online. That's not because the internet would be somehow safe because of the relative anonymity, but because for many people, it's the closest to some kind of private sphere of one's life. I think that if there's one thing that many people have lacked before the coming of the internet, it was a meaningful sense of privacy and a time and a place for it -- and the internet made room for that need, and in a quite paradoxical way at that, given its public and social nature.

[Sam Vara]

So if I shoot someone in a video game (someone with an user_id) .. I have broken the first precept?

Note - I am not asking about effect of video games on youth and their tendency towards violence .. just a simple Yes/No ..is shooting someone dead while playing Call of Duty breaking the first precept as you suggested?

No, you would not have broken the precept. And no, I never suggested that such a thing would be a breach of a precept.

[SarathW]

So if I shoot someone in a video game

This forum for example is not a video game.
Killing someone even in a video game is bad Kama.
It is root is hatred.
Whether people share their private details is not a matter.

[dharmacorps]

Written word is a form of speech. Engaging in false, harsh, divisive, or deceptive language in written form is going to effect your mind in a negative way the same way as if you were speaking with your voice. In a way, written word is even more profound, because it is documented there for people to see at any time in the future.