Lynching other U2 Fans

[beli]

There have been a number of threads of late where a U2 fan has been singled out and savaged by other U2 fans. I'm curious to know why individuals believe this kind of behaviour is acceptable.

In some cases, but not all, the person being savaged is either not from the same country as the people doing the savaging, or is eccentric. Do people do this in real life? If you meet someone who has a different sense of humour, or is a little peculiar, or doesn't socially fit in, do you round up your friends and verbally savage them until they leave?

Why is it okay to pack maul people on the internet?

PS This post is not directed towards moderators as I believe people should be able to moderate themselves on most days, barring the odd wobbly.

 

[financeguy]

Ehm can you give a few examples of what you mean? If you're referring to the thread about J___ I'd tend to agree as the matter was better dealt with by PM's as the Mods pointed out.

I tend to think, on debating forums, people ought be able to stand up for themselves and give as good as they get, and most people on here are, once it doesn't generate into outright bullying or hassling.

 

[beli]

No I wasn't specifically referring to that person. There are many more examples of people being savaged by people here. Im not game to post links to closed threads. Tis not the done thing.

Just pretend you dont need examples. Hypotetically, you do think its okay for people to descend on someone like a pack of hyenas? And I am talking about bullying and harassment..

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Nature of the forum beast. I think it's a bit lame. People say some "incendiary" posters like so and so need to get a life b/c they seem to be constant in the way they make complaints/ critiques, but sometimes the "harassers" also need to get a life and some self control. Before last year, I never cared to read a person's satirical posts even with the mucho reactions they got. So I didn't bother with them. Over time I've gotten to like the posts for what they are (be they biting/ funny/ or even mean). At the least they were entertaining. Nice change of pace to be honest. If there is a post or poster that seems annoying, I don't see why people can't ignore them.

 

[financeguy]

Hypotetically, you do think its okay for people to descend on someone like a pack of hyenas? And I am talking about bullying and harassment..

No certainly not but there is an avenue of reporting such posts to the mods for attention by them. You know, I quite frankly do think if someones taste in music is shite, or if they're saying things that are patently ridiculous then they ought to have it pointed out to them but there are nice and nasty ways of doing it of course.

People should be prepared to have the piss taken out of them now and again, as I did out of myself and preconceptions about Pet Shop Boys fans with the PSB thread I started recently.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I'm also not surprised with the lynching mentality that a group of posters can have. Look at the past in terms of everything from fake Edge, the ugly Boston crybabies, etc... not out of the norm.

 

[beli]

No certainly not but there is an avenue of reporting such posts to the mods for attention by them. You know, I quite frankly do think if someones taste in music is shite, or if they're saying things that are patently ridiculous then they ought to have it pointed out to them but there are nice and nasty ways of doing it of course.

I guess Im old fashioned and believe people, for the most part, should be able to control themselves without having to be nannied.

There was one thread where one of the people posting actually boasted how wonderful it was that U2 fans can rally around and lynch someone. (not a direct quote, my words)

 

[Sicy]

Who wants my job

 

[financeguy]

Who wants my job

Think I'll pass on that.

 

[Sicy]

Smart

 

[Axver]

Who wants my job

If the pay's good ...

 

[financeguy]

There was one thread where one of the people posting actually boasted how wonderful it was that U2 fans can rally around and lynch someone. (not a direct quote, my words)

I didn't see that one and that kind of thing is certainly wrong. Often people making those kinds of comments tend to be, well, pretty young and relatively new fans and somewhat over-anxious to convert the rest of the world to their new found love of everything U2, and correspondingly unwilling to allow even constructive criticism of "their band".

 

[Sicy]

If the pay's good ...

Yeah if headaches, stress, and sleepless nights count as pay!

 

[beli]

Actually that mention of Fake Edge has brought up another point. Do you consider yourself able to peg/label someones nationality by reading their posts? I don't mean in regards to spelling in English but rather choice of words, style of writing, etc.

And then, do you transfer your understanding of their humour/syntax when reading their posts?

Or am I pissing in the dark?

 

[indra]

I guess Im old fashioned and believe people, for the most part, should be able to control themselves without having to be nannied.

There was one thread where one of the people posting actually boasted how wonderful it was that U2 fans can rally around and lynch someone. (not a direct quote, my words)

I want to state that what I post here is not directed at the mods because they simply are doing what various posters push them to do.

But I am shocked at what I see as a lack of maturity amongst so many posters here. What I mean by that is the incredible unwillingness to allow differences of opinion especially in regards to how U2 is perceived. There is so much talk about "real" fans --who is and who isn't and that those who aren't "real" fans should "find another band," not buy any tickets (and leave them for the "real" fans), get off this board, and often times do things that are physically impossible.

I don't mind people disagreeing with the content of anyone's posts, but I am quite disgusted by the glee taken in attacking the person. It reminds me of the popular kids bullying others at school. It's not mature or decent then and it isn't mature or decent now.

 

[beli]

I don't mind people disagreeing with the content of anyone's posts, but I am quite disgusted by the glee taken in attacking the person. It reminds me of the popular kids bullying others at school. It's not mature or decent then and it isn't mature or decent now.

Thank you. That's what I was trying to say but you have done so in a more articulate fashion

 

[lazarus]

I wouldn't say that ganging up on someone you disagree with or someone who has an unpopular opinion is fair, but if someone repeatedly starts threads that are malicious towards various members of the band and doesn't heed warnings given by moderators, they deserve to get the boot, and any other member harrassment that preceeds or follows it.

I think people here are given A LOT of leeway in terms of what they can say. I'm sure you'd have to be a major league asshole to finally get banned. But you know what? Good riddance. I'm all for criticizing U2's choices, but some younger or more impressionable fans might come on here and take someone's out of context quote literally and come away with erroneous negative feelings regarding a band member, an album, etc. It might not seem like a big deal, but when you're the most popular fan site this is where new people are going to get their info from. If a poster is doing something out of maliciousness, even when they're just trying to push buttons, it can have a long-term effect.

When most people concoct theories about something, they usually have some basis in fact. They CORRECTLY quote interviews, books, atricles, etc. But if someone is deliberately distorting facts to make the band look bad, they deserve to be called on it, and if they continue posting in this irresponsible fashion, they deserve to get the boot. I'm sure in all this subjectiveness the mods OBJECTIVELY determine when someone has crossed the line.


laz

 

[beli]

Just to clarify. I'm not refering to people being banned.

But you did raise some interesting points about the internet U2 sites being some kind of showcase for U2. I don't mind a bit of negativity. I don't mind people saying they don't like A Man And A Woman even thought its one of my favourite songs. Each to their own.

I'm all for criticizing U2's choices, but some younger or more impressionable fans might come on here and take someone's out of context quote literally and come away with erroneous negative feelings regarding a band member, an album, etc.
laz

What kind of image is the internet presenting to younger and more impressionable fans when U2 fans appear to carry the flame and light any dissenters?

Not that this thread was about dissent. I actually meant it more as a thread about miscommunication. Ha, the irony of it all.

 

[gareth brown]

I notice in many threads if somebody has a certain opinion on something to do with U2 that doesn't go well with what some SUPER-FAN thinks...that super-fan will get on his/her soapbox, stick their nose in the air and talk like they're god almighty. I remember the words "I'm sorry, I don't think you understand what U2 is..." being used against someone.

You get complete pricks here, and many people will act like bloody JOCKS tripping up computer nerds in the hall over a BAND. Lighten up some of you.

 

[dandy]

excellent thread, beli.

 

[indra]

I remember the words "I'm sorry, I don't think you understand what U2 is..." being used against someone.

Hehehe. I have the suspicion that U2 "is" as many different things as there are fans (meaning that each and every person gets a slightly different meaning from the band).

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I think people here are given A LOT of leeway in terms of what they can say. I'm sure you'd have to be a major league asshole to finally get banned. But you know what? Good riddance. I'm all for criticizing U2's choices, but some younger or more impressionable fans might come on here and take someone's out of context quote literally and come away with erroneous negative feelings regarding a band member, an album, etc. It might not seem like a big deal, but when you're the most popular fan site this is where new people are going to get their info from. If a poster is doing something out of maliciousness, even when they're just trying to push buttons, it can have a long-term effect.

No offense to this board and the mods, but this place is heavily moderated, so people can't necessarily say what they always feel, etc. So the idea that you can say anything and get away with it isn't necessarily true. I mean trolling, which is a bannable offense on this forum is defined as "getting a rise from someone." That is pretty broad and can apply to almost anything. Pros and cons to this and I'll leave it at that.

As for impressionable fans... I feel that if a fan is that impressionable to change their opinion of a band so easily b/c of rumor, innuendo, etc. then eventually something will change their mind anyways.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

^Agreed.

 

[Miggy D]

All I know is, it's unbelievable what people will say when they can do it from the safety and anonymity of their computer. I'd like to see these people say half of their shit to the other person's face.

-Miggy

 

[U2girl]

Regarding Jick, I feel all the hatred he got from some fans - I think the term lynching would be appropriate, so I will mention him here - had a lot to do with the U2 album he dislikes.
I have a feeling it would happen a lot less had he voiced an opinion against the alleged U2 lowpoint of this forum.
Unlike some people, he tried to argue his case with excerpts from interviews and actual band thoughts, and even more so unlike some people, he didn't resort to name-calling.

As for accepting other views, I wish some fans of a certain U2 era wouldn't resort to snotty and arrogant posts, with rude insults and name-calling. Yet some of those people are so quick to yell "foul" when someone says something remotely critical about their certain era. (it goes beyond U2 actually, some of those fans feel they're entitled to preach to anyone about their music taste)

 

[D'oh!]

Regarding Jick, I feel all the hatred he got from some fans - I think the term lynching would be appropriate, so I will mention him here - had a lot to do with the U2 album he dislikes.
I have a feeling it would happen a lot less had he voiced an opinion against the alleged U2 lowpoint of this forum.
Unlike some people, he tried to argue his case with excerpts from interviews and actual band thoughts, and even more so unlike some people, he didn't resort to name-calling.

i gotta say i agree with that....

 

[typhoon]

No offense to this board and the mods, but this place is heavily moderated, so people can't necessarily say what they always feel, etc. So the idea that you can say anything and get away with it isn't necessarily true. I mean trolling, which is a bannable offense on this forum is defined as "getting a rise from someone." That is pretty broad and can apply to almost anything. Pros and cons to this and I'll leave it at that.

Really, the only thing you can't do here is insult someone else, which is a silly thing to do on an internet forum anyway. Most of what the mods do (that I notice, anyway) is custodial stuff, like moving threads to the right forum or closing redundant threads. Jick's suspension is something of an anamoly, and that's probably only because so many people were bugging the mods about it.

In any case, I never feel restricted in what I can say here. You just have to remain respectful of the other posters. You don't even have to respect the band that much. They did, after all, record "A Man and a Woman."

My only problem here is the people who complain about the complaining. Just stay out of those threads or ignore those particular posts. Goes back to the respecting each other bit. I don't tell you what you can discuss, and you do the same for me, yeah? When you get right down to it, we're all here because we like the band, so any differences of opinion are ultimately pretty minor.

 

[myusernamehere]

One person is rational and logical (for the most part).

A group of people are not.

It's much easier to get a "posse" together to go after one lone opinion than it is to have a one on one discussion about said opinion.

 

[financeguy]

Jick's suspension is something of an anamoly, and that's probably only because so many people were bugging the mods about it.

I'm a little bit confused by this talk about Jick's suspension and you're the second person I've seen refer to it. I haven't seen any official announcement from the mods on this unless I missed it - can someone please enlighten me??

 

[lazarus]

Regarding Jick, I feel all the hatred he got from some fans - I think the term lynching would be appropriate, so I will mention him here - had a lot to do with the U2 album he dislikes.
I have a feeling it would happen a lot less had he voiced an opinion against the alleged U2 lowpoint of this forum.
Unlike some people, he tried to argue his case with excerpts from interviews and actual band thoughts, and even more so unlike some people, he didn't resort to name-calling.

Do you actually believe this crap? Yeah, J was banned because he hates POP. That makes a lot of sense. Why don't you give it a rest? We know you don't like POP. We know you think the rest of Interference is conspiring to shove it down your throat. Move on.

You claim that J used excerpts from interviews, which isn't the whole picture. On COUNTLESS occassions he has taken band quotes OUT OF CONTEXT to backup his points, while omitting information that would disprove them. This kind of crap might be funny once or twice, but after a while it becomes deliberate information, and to a certain extent, libel. His dislike for "a certain album" was only one of many topic he presented a distorted picture of.

Because you also have such a dislike for POP (maybe you hate Adam Clayton too), you don't seem bothered by these sketchy tactics. Well maybe you can take over where J left off and see how far you get.

Good luck.


laz