http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0155923
>Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated.
>>78113358
>"There are no reasons for anonymity if people want to stand up for higher-order moral principles..."
What does this mean? That anonymity is bad because people will defend SJW moral absolutes less?
>>78113358
Interesting. I remember warning people about Facebook political discussions, but this journal really, REALLY, hits the hammer on the head. Thanks for sharing op.
>>78115945
People don't like anonymity because they want people to suffer consequences for words
So they just proved peer pressure is real and the loudest, most belligerent namefags are the ones who end up controlling the conversation?
woooow, they figured out something anybody who has ever used a bulletin board could've told them: circlejerks becoming the norm, and anybody who says anything against the circlejerk's narrative gets REEEEEEEE'd out--typically via ban/shadowban.
>>78113358
Facebook promotes cyber bullying? My, I never would have thought.
>>78116506
I mean yea it was obvious to me too but at least we have something we can point to as reasonable evidence now.
When you're anonymous, your arguments must stand on their own via reason and logic. You must create justifications for beliefs. Aggression is therefore seen as self evidently fallacious and thus avoided.
When you're non anonymous, aggression can be seen as virtue signalling your strong emotions of a point. These people aren't concerned with making a reasonable statement, but in fact demonstrating their strong position.
Furthermore, we're here because we're actually scared arguing in favour of liberty and freedom will hurt our employment chances, our relationships with our friends and family. They're where they are because they know they can be as extreme as possible and be continually rewarded as a virtuous person. It has come to pass that the self evident truths are now immoral.
>>78116481
hmm, didn't think of it like that but I think your right.
I was trying to get around some reverse virtue signaling, or maybe a negative virtue signaling.
>>78116481
Ahhhh okay. Makes sense to me now, and holy shit.
>>78113358
Anons have nothing to prove by being internet tough guys, nor do we have some kind of warped honor to defend.
/pol/ is a board of pace
>>78116919
almost like everyone gets a soap box to go as far in whatever direction they like, but the normies take it to another level because they don't have any immidiate maybe phyaical repercussions any ass hole on an actual box irl would get.
that and this >>78116647
>>78113358
>aggressive
>online
L e l
