JUPITER, YOU ARE ANGRY ABOUT THE MANIPULATION WITH AGGRESSION ON THE INTERNET

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

Remember the catch phrase about angry Jupiter? "Jupiter, you are angry - then you are wrong." For many years I liked it, because it was based and, at the same time, reinforced my belief that truly wise, reasonable people can always find the right words or actions to solve any issue without aggression and anger.

The trap in this expression lies in a number of explicit and implicit ideas that limit the "wise" hand and foot:

1) All questions and disagreements can be resolved without anger, calmly and judiciously (in reality, as you understand, some issues are unsolvable in principle, and in some, especially those related to the protection of personal space, without aggression in any way);

2) If these issues / disagreements cannot be resolved without explicit aggression, the one who first showed anger is to blame;

3) If someone is angry, behaves aggressively - then this automatically makes him not wise, stupid, traumatized, psychologically infantile and any other “not very good” person;

4) Passive / veiled aggression, in which anger and negativity towards a person are not expressed openly, is not considered aggression. So, for example, “in my memory, people who behaved like you were not distinguished by high mental abilities” as if they were not considered aggression, unlike “you are a fool!”. The imperative mood in a conversation (through advice) is also not aggression, but an aggressive reaction to them - yes, this is no longer good.

Our anger can indeed be a sign that we are wrong - when it comes to some scientific problem, or any problem that is associated with the world of material objects. But a lot changes when it comes to ourselves. In situations where it is not a problem that is attacked, but (explicitly or implicitly) a person, all these settings give a huge advantage to manipulators who play on the Internet at the game “Angry Jupiter”, a favorite game of “trolls,” but not only them (I have now come up with the name).

Why it is to manipulators is a separate story, but its essence is as follows: using various techniques to force the interlocutor to get angry, and then say something like “why are you angry? What, there are no more arguments? " Well-trained manipulators in service have psychological "explanations": you can always explain the anger of the interlocutor by his personal problems, traumas and the like that do not allow "to think calmly and sensibly." For example, here's a primitive option: go to a blog / social network to a person and declare that what he is doing is complete bullshit. And when a person gets angry at a disrespectful tone, you can triumphantly add: you see, he / she got angry at my truth, because there is nothing to say in refutation, but we know that if someone is angry …

A more sophisticated option is not to be rude outright (nonsense, nonsense, you are a fool), but under the guise of a well-wisher, use the following forms of attack:

a) give advice and teach (“read this,” “you have to do it like this”);

b) emphasize shortcomings ("you have two commas missing, by the way - write correctly, this will make the perception of your thoughts better");

c) to emphasize their superiority (“and I did it with a bang in a similar situation”);

d) analyze the personality of the writer, his motives, goals, and so on without permission (well, this is the most favorite technique).

The most experienced manipulators manage to hide their aggression so well that the victim feels that “something is wrong” in the text, but cannot clearly express what exactly - he is angry, but does not understand what is the matter. Recognition of these manipulations is a separate story … Trolling or all sorts of manipulations on the Internet and in live communication are facilitated by a few more unwritten rules of "polite communication", which, however, are adhered to by a considerable number of people. These rules are as follows:

- You must play free speech. In other words, if you have posted a text or photo, then you must endure any statements in any form.“This is the Internet, baby, they can send it here,” “the Internet is a public space, everyone has the right to vote here,” “if you don’t want to listen to our unpleasant truth, limit the circle of people who can see your text”. However, even in a real, not virtual, public space, no one has the right to tell you whatever they want about you. About politicians, third parties, environmental problems and so on - yes. Yes, in "virtual" it is much easier to be rude - but it is also much easier to fight back those who are rude. For example, depriving them of the right to vote, banning, deleting offensive posts, and so on. Or not react at all. But - here other rules may come into play, preventing this from being done.

- You must continue the unpleasant conversation with the person with whom you started it. If you interrupted him, this automatically proves that your “opponent” is right about you. Many people find it difficult to just stop texting with a person with whom they have already begun to do this, and who clearly expresses a negative attitude towards them. Why? I would like to convince you, I want to prove that you misunderstood, and so on. This desire is the hook that makes the unpleasant conversation continue. Those who like to play "angry Jupiter" completely ignore the offensive tone of their messages, their violation of other people's personal boundaries, and so on - but they are happy to interpret the refusal to communicate with them as the defeat of another, as his lack of arguments. And since you are "obliged" to continue the conversation and endure, to prove that you are not a camel, they do not hesitate to face direct psychological abuse. Because if you clearly and clearly said that you do not want to continue communication in this tone and ask the person to stop and not write more with you, and he continues to do this (even in the most polite form) - this is the most real, without any equivocation, psychological abuse. Where “no” is said, there is a border, the crossing of which is violence, and it does not matter in what form it is carried out.

A special case of this rule is “you are obliged to answer the questions asked / accusations brought against you”. You were asked questions - for some reason you have to answer them, and unwillingness to answer is again a sign of "you are angry", weakness, and so on. There are two classic manipulative approaches to this situation: questions like "when did you stop drinking cognac in the morning?" (ie, the fact of drinking cognac is considered established) and questions with the requirement “answer“yes”or“no!”. Sometimes these questions can be combined.

The way out of these manipulative interactions lies through the adoption of two principles:

1. You are not obliged to prove anything about your identity to another person. Nothing at all. Any uninvited personality transition is an attack; any continuation of the initiated action after an expressed protest is violence. We do not live in a rosy world, alas, and there is a lot of psychological violence in it, and the Internet provides a huge field for all kinds of aggressors. To tell you about your personality (not about your point of view, not about facts / arguments / opinions, but about your personality), the other person must get permission. But the other is not obliged to prove something to us, and if we attacked, then we need to be ready to repulse, and not be surprised

2. Aggression in response to attack or violence is a normal reaction. Healthy aggression is an important condition for psychological well-being. To demand wisdom from oneself in any situation, to try to excel in the ability to attack and force those who skillfully do this means to doom oneself to defeat and humiliation. It's easier to stop it. Since we often ourselves sometimes violate the boundaries of other people, willingly or unwittingly, going on about emotions, we attack, then for a start we can outline our boundary: “Sorry, but treating me in such a tone is unacceptable”, or “let's not discuss me, but my point of view”, or even“you know, I don’t want to read criticism under this post / photo”(you have the right, by the way:)). If a person did not slow down, then he turned to violence. And, most likely, in a verbal duel, he is stronger than you. What to do is up to you (and I don't know the ideal models), but anger here is one of the most natural reactions.

The rules work both ways. If you want to give someone advice, attach a recommendation, tell about your invaluable experience in getting out of a situation from which a person cannot get out - ask permission. If you want to "enlighten" another person about his personality traits, first ask yourself a question, why would you suddenly need to correct another. Because most of all we want to correct in the other what we cannot cope with in ourselves.

“Jupiter, are you angry when they attacked you? You're right.