Twitter Bullying

Everyone and their Mother has had a comment on Ricky Gervais and the "Mong" debate this week. I'm not going to comment much on it here, read Richard Herring blogging on it as he puts it well. Just a couple of things from me, the first being Gervais' comment about how the meaning has changed, look it's in urban dictionary. I'm not sure if he just looked that up to support himself but what the whole thing looks like to me is a 50 year old trying to talk like he's still a teenager and still cool, which is a little pathetic. You could say any word, let's say the N word, being careful how I phrase things here, and say it means something else, then put up a definition to say it doesn't mean what you think it does, it means this. If it doesn't mean what you say to the people you were talking to then you're being offensive. Offensive can be ok in comedy if you're funny enough but in this case I don't think he was. Purely my view.

And we come to the second point here. What happened when he was challenged on the use of the word was that he RT'd the comments and then a whole load of followers decided to attack. From comments on twitter from Richard Herring today he had several thousand people attacking him for daring to query Gervais and his response about the meaning. Quite a few abusive. Which was in a way encouraged by Ricky Gervais. And that to my mind is bullying. There were other people who took it up with him, and some of them also received abuse, I heard someone on the radio yesterday who had been a victim of this as well. Just for disagreeing with someone, and saying they thought he was wrong.

This isn't something that's come out of nowhere, I've seen it happen or heard from other people I follow on twitter that it happened to them. And I don't get why people do this. They follow a celeb, fair enough I follow a few myself, but when someone disagrees with them, or says something they don't like they RT it and then an attack seems to start. I don't understand why people do this? Why go into attack another person because they disagree with something someone else said? They're generally not being abusive, in most cases although some are, and they're only making a point that isn't nasty to anyone else, but thousands can descend on them because of one comment or RT by someone else. There is general nastiness from individuals as well, but when you get a large number of people doing it, that is bullying, led by a sneering idiot usually. It mystifies me why people do this, why you start sending messages because a celeb you follow says something. Do you think you're helpful, do you think you're defending them when you attack someone else, are you being verbally abusive for a reason other than an ego thing, saying I'm defending this person, because I know them, do you think you're friend with the people you follow on twitter? Don't understand it, I really don't.

Trial by Twitter

So Amanda Knox is innocent and now free, despite what the Daily Mail said very briefly on Monday night although this explanation does tell you how they screwed that up. And as much as I despise the Daily Mail, it's fair enough. But the thing that interests me is the comments that were getting made on Twitter when she was released and are still going on, by a huge number of people who know about as much as I do about the Italian Justice system, (I assume this is true for most of them anyway), which is pretty much nothing. But it struck me again that people believe what the propaganda is, and that there may yet be an issue with that.

Now there are still questions to answer in that case, Meredeth Kercher was murdered by someone and the Kercher Family do deserve answers, which they are not getting. In my view there are many unanswered questions about the case, and they may be able to get some from Knox and Sollecito if they are prepared to tell them, or what they tell the press. But this isn't what I'm talking about here, I'll accept the Courts verdict on guilt or innocence. But plenty others do't seem to.

We had the same kind of comments when Rebecca Leighton was released. People assumed guilt, mostly based on what was said in the press. There is an assumption of guilt when someone is arrested. People talk about not trusting the police, but they seem to automatically assume that when someone is arrested for a high profile crime that they must be guilty and it's ok to pronounce on that. I saw comments when Rebecca Leighton was freed that said how can they let her out when she's guilty, the comments were accusing her of Murder, with no evidence despite the fact the police have confirmed there wasn't evidence of it, people were still screaming that a murderer had been released. There were other cases you'll probably be aware of, mostly based on biased press reports and assumptions made by people hearing the news and not thinking properly.

I don't understand why we slag the press off so much and then accept much of what we're told as fact without thinking about it. When people are arrested and charged they are not guilty at that point, but people seem to accept that the police don't arrest anyone without cause for serious crimes, except when it is someone like them, or related to a cause the believe in, or something they follow. And even then they believe the papers, despite the general criticism of the police that they may make every day. We buy into hype too easily, and I'm not sure why that is for some people. It's just annoyed me. I'm not making a point here really,  I'm just thinking out loud, and there's no-one here listening.