I believe it absolutely has coarsened those things. The ability to say something nasty to someone and a/ not be around for the aftermath of hurt it causes and b/ be in no risk of a smack in the mouth have allowed people to lay off their inner editor. However, while I bemoan that, I don't think that means I have to advocate legislating about it, does it?
Why do people keep doubling down on this utter, utter shīt? There is virtually no evidence of online abuse translating into actual harm to individuals, which means we are now policing people's hurty feels. Why?
Check out the actor James Woods on Twitter.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Oh, I do. He is pleasingly robust. As, amusingly, is Captain Kirk.
He is currently going hard after a chap who threatened him with violence there; has been citing examples of online ****ery escalating to the real thing, especially those regarding celebrities like himself.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Why do people keep doubling down on this utter, utter shīt? There is virtually no evidence of online abuse translating into actual harm to individuals, which means we are now policing people's hurty feels. Why?
sw, we all know that beneath that surly, snarling exterior lingers the tender heart of a man who weeps at romcoms, listens to Barbra Streisand and regularly uses the phrase 'Let's hug it better'. You can't hide it from us.
sw, we all know that beneath that surly, snarling exterior lingers the tender heart of a man who weeps at romcoms, listens to Barbra Streisand and regularly uses the phrase 'Let's hug it better'. You can't hide it from us.