[cerveza_fiesta]

I'm not sure if folks outside Canada get exposed to our news much, but there is a story that's getting a lot of airtime right now regarding a young lady in Vancouver that committed suicide as a result of alleged "cyber bullying". Before her suicide, she posted a video on youtube where she tells her story and expresses her feelings in a series of cue cards.

I can't find the link to the original CBC article, but essentially she was screen-capped in a chat room exposing herself, the capper blackmailed her with the photo and when she didn't go along with it, the photo was released. She lost her friends, was tormented at school, moved to a new school, the photos followed her, and you can pretty much fill in the blanks for the rest of the story until its unfortunate conclusion.

It garnered national attention (not surprisingly) and an Anonymous group formed to track the supposed capper, who they identified, and then published his contact info. The police have said that Anonymous didn't find the right guy and that there's no evidence linking him to any wrongdoing as yet. In the media the case is being categorized as outright cyberbullying, which at first glance is exactly what it appears to be.

Then I was listening to a pretty compelling interview on CBC's late-morning radio program "Q" from Oct 24, (cbc.ca/q if you care to listen) where the host speaks with a writer for Vice magazine. The writer did some investigation of his own and came to some different conclusions regarding the case. While not dismissing the categorization of cyberbullying for what her schoolmates did, he examined the root cause of the entire thing and exposed a disturbing internet community whose entire raison-d'etre seems to be luring young women on the internet and blackmailing them with the screen captures. He proposes that Amanda Todd was a victim of this internet community and presents evidence (albeit inconclusive) that Anonymous may actually have gotten it right after all.

First vice storyhttp://www.vice.com/...anda-todds-life

And a continuation of the story
http://www.vice.com/...ted-amanda-todd

His message in it all: Yes cyberbullying exists and it was a factor in Amanda Todd's suicide, but the actual root cause of the problem is a hidden-in-plain-sight community of internet predators. With the media focusing so much on the cyberbullying angle, they're completely missing the point and diverting attention away from the actual issue.

So what do you think? I tend to agree with the editor that the media is pointing its influential eye in entirely the wrong direction and that in all the kerfuffle the opportunity to effect real change for the better might get missed entirely.

[D'rek]

I'll agree that the media should have been putting some more thorough journalism into this, and given some actual coverage and investigation into the online predators side of the story. However, there is definitely still a lot to be reported about the localized bullying, as well. Both the online predator and the harassment from her school friends were major factors in her situation and suicide.

That being said, the media has done the usual shitty job of reporting on the localized bullying side of the issue, as well - basically a big giant whine-fest of lamenting. Yes, it's sad, but maybe the journalists should be actually talking about the issue in an adult manner? Research how prevalent these sort of cases are? Tell parents how they can better monitor their kids' online behaviour to make sure their kids aren't the little dipshits sending bleach pictures to abused classmates? Investigate what, if anything, the school staff noticed and/or did about the situation?

The media doesn't walk to talk about internet predators and vigilante justice at all, I guess because they don't feel it engages their audience as much, but the media isn't really willing to talk about local [cyber-]bullying either, they just seem to want to whine and tearjerk louder than their competitors until some other big story will come along.

[Abyss]

D, on 25 October 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I'll agree that the media should have been putting some more thorough journalism into this,...Tell parents how they can better monitor their kids' online behaviour to make sure their kids aren't the little dipshits sending bleach pictures to abused classmates? ...

This, more than anything, irks me about this story.

I accept that at a certain age the average parent isn't going to monitor everything their kid does (leaving aside for a moment the issue of what the average parent SHOULD do, including teaching their child that maybe flashing people on the net is a bad idea and then having enough self esteem to deal with what happened next....), but FFS after the first attempt, the youtube clip, the switching schools and so on....

And then there are the parents of the ref'd dipshits....

It's very convenient to blame the internet, society, etc etc, but i'm reminded of Tina Fey's speech thanking her parents for raising her with, paraphrasing, "far more confidence than my looks or intelligence meritted" and i'm left wondering why that isn't the standard, and where the actual breakdown happened.

[cerveza_fiesta]

My reaction after hearing the Vice writer's point of view is that the media in its own way shapes how the lawmakers react. They come out with a flashy story about a girl committing suicide because of cyberbullying (this wonderful new buzzword that everybody in news-media is so happy about right now), and all of a sudden the opposition party in the House of Commons is crying "WE NEED A NATIONAL DISCUSSION ON CYBERBULLYING" . Senators meanwhile are starting committees to investigate cyberbullying prevalence, and all of a sudden cyberbullying becomes everyone's focus, even though "cyberbullying" in and of itself was only a small part of the overall problem in the Amanda Todd suicide.

If the media were to bravely abandon its buzzword in favour of some responsible journalism, the focus might instead be on education campaigns for teens. Make them and parents aware of how they might be exploited on the internet....cause I guarantee Amanda Todd was just fucking around and had no clue some perv was going to screencap her and blackmail her with it. It's just like how we teach little kids to be cautious around strangers, but for some reason society collectively ignores the fact that the internet is just as dangerous a place as the real world.

And I don't buy the argument that "oh it's the parents' and teachers' fault". Fact of the matter is, parents supervise their kids less and less as their kids get older out of necessity. I certainly remember my parents trying to be more involved with my life as a teenager, I reacted badly to it and they stood back as a result. Kids at that age actively seek ways to do bad shit without their parents' knowledge just to prove they can...there's no way (short of a GPS collar and head-mounted webcam) that a parent can know enough to stop it every single time. Same goes for the bully's parents - their kid might act one way at home and a completely different way at school. For teachers, maybe the worst bully at school is a straight-A student and doesn't fit the classic stereotype. The blame just can't be laid at their feet so easily. They have a responsibility to educate the kids about the dangers, but when things go to shit, they can't always be blamed for it.

Bullying is just too diverse of a thing to actually quantify, much less stop. It's programmed into us to compete, distinguish ourselves among peers and prove ourselves the better of others - especially as young adults. We can try to get kids to express that drive in more constructive ways, but in the end I think it's futile to try and stop it because the harder adults try to intervene, the harder teens try to avoid their notice.

I guess my point is, It's a far more intelligent approach IMO to deal with the causes of the most destructive kinds of bullying (eg. bullying caused by a circulated nude photo) than it is to fight bullying as a whole.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 25 October 2012 - 06:49 PM

[D'rek]

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 October 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

I guess my point is, It's a far more intelligent approach IMO to deal with the causes of the most destructive kinds of bullying (eg. bullying caused by a circulated nude photo) than it is to fight bullying as a whole.

For some sort of "national discussion" or other large-scale operation like a national police task-force, yes I agree, but...

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 October 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

And I don't buy the argument that "oh it's the parents' and teachers' fault". Fact of the matter is, parents supervise their kids less and less as their kids get older out of necessity. I certainly remember my parents trying to be more involved with my life as a teenager, I reacted badly to it and they stood back as a result. Kids at that age actively seek ways to do bad shit without their parents' knowledge just to prove they can...there's no way (short of a GPS collar and head-mounted webcam) that a parent can know enough to stop it every single time. Same goes for the bully's parents - their kid might act one way at home and a completely different way at school. For teachers, maybe the worst bully at school is a straight-A student and doesn't fit the classic stereotype. The blame just can't be laid at their feet so easily. They have a responsibility to educate the kids about the dangers, but when things go to shit, they can't always be blamed for it.

...according to her suicide video-note, this girl was getting physicall assaulted on school property, and had to move to another location in an attempt to get out of her torment. Parents and teachers can't supervise every moment of a teenager's life, but, IMO, when students are being beaten up on school ground the teachers are failing somewhere. And when a parent knows their child has had to actually move due to being tormented, and isn't aware of it happening again, then that parent is failing, too (I actually don't know if that was the case or not - I haven't seen any coverage detailing how much the parent was aware of). And if the parent does know what kind of sick things are going on amongst their daughters' classmates, I sure as hell hope that they would talk about it with the tormentors' parents and that *those* parents would not fail to take corrective action with their own kids.

[Abyss]

cerveza_fiesta, on 25 October 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

... I don't buy the argument that "oh it's the parents' ...fault". ...They have a responsibility to educate the kids about the dangers, but when things go to shit, they can't always be blamed for it.
...

It's their fault for not ensuring their kid had the common sense and intelligence to avoid large chunks of the mess, and self-confidence to move on from it once it happened.

Teens/kids, no matter how smart and educated and socially advantaged do stupid shit all the time. What matters is how they and their family deal with it, and the news is skirting that issue here because 'cyber-bullying' on twitter and facebook is easier to crunch down into a three-minute/three para/164 character blurb. This should never have gotten to the point of the original youtube flipcard vid in the first place.

[King Lear]

Meh.

This shit happens all the time, everywhere, and for a while people are vaguely outraged, and then they forget about it because
damn kids and their computers/shitty parents and teachers/guard the wimmins/the kid was a bully or a slut or got into fights or otherwise a bit shit/should have hardened the fuck up

What we won't talk about is how a child was shamed to death using her own body. And why we think that's okay. It's always what if she had/n't if her parent's had/n't if her teacher had/n't
What we won't ask is why we're putting the onus on a dead child not have been bullied and sexually harassed and have tried to commit suicide and then to have been made fun of for failing the first time.
Call out the bullies in her schools, find out who took the pictures and spread them around and punish them all. I don't have a problem with Anonymous outing them if no one else is going to do but I'm not going out of my way to support a group of people whose idea of an insult is a homophobic slur.

People are are posting about Amanda Todd are saying that they're continuously getting searches from all over world on their blogs and pages from people who are looking for the photos that were used to blackmail her with.
Why don't we talk about how the media hype surrounding the case has lead to more people looking to further exploit this child's body?

The first thing I read about Amanda Todd which I frustratingly can't find started with something like 'When Amanda Todd was twelve she met a man online who told her she was beautiful and she believed him'.
If your first thought, when reading about a barely pubescent child who drank bleach because of the way people treated her over pictures of her boobs taken by a man who refused to let her escape from a mistake she made when she was twelve, is that she's somehow complicit in her own abuse then I honestly don't know what to say to you.

[worry]

Yah. Other stories might get complicated (though still never in a blame-the-victim way) when it comes to general bullying of a kid over the years by multiple people. Like do you punish the final bully for what broke the camel's back, or what? (Thinking vaguely of the Rutgers spycam case).

But in the specific instance of Amanda Todd, there seems to be a specific predator and a specific predator community that should definitely be held accountable for a number of illegal activities, harassment being only one of them. It's not even really in the same galaxy as "kids will be kids" or whatever.

[worry]

To be specific.

[Morgoth]

I don't think any teenager, no matter how well they've been raised, can deal with not only being made continously fun of for a suicide attempt by people who were previously friends. But also being told on a regular basis that the world would be a better place if said teenager is dead.

Amanda Todd made a silly mistake as a twelve year old. It was not malicious, mean, or hurtfull what she did. She simply did something stupid. All twelve year olds do at some point. The people at her school who acted as they did in respons on the other hand, they and their parents should be ashamed. Fuck those people.

When we talk about failing as a parent, Amanda Todd's parents have no place in the discussion.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Abyss, on 25 October 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

It's their fault for not ensuring their kid had the common sense and intelligence to avoid large chunks of the mess, and self-confidence to move on from it once it happened.

I absolutely don't understand this stance. Kids simply do dumb shit no matter what and how many times you tell them it's stupid.


The parents obviously were aware and concerned enough that they moved her to a new school, and probably did have a feeling the rumors might follow her. I'm sure the teachers were told about it too, and kept an eye out for Todd like they keep an eye out for the other 1000 kids attending the same school. If that somehow wasn't the case (which I doubt very much) then I grant you it was the teachers' and parents' fault for this specific incident. In general, no.


I know from family members and friends who are teachers that the bullying thing is unbelievably difficult to actually stop or catch, and that the school is very limited in what it can do. The schools get complaints from parents daily about bullying now and teachers all receive training on signs & symptoms to watch out for. The problem is that even with increased vigilance from teachers, kids find ways to do it when teachers *aren't* watching, when they're sure not to have any evidence brought against them aside from the testimony of another child. Then when it gets serious, the accused child's parents get involved and cry foul against the other kid's "lies" and in the end nothing happens because there's no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing...and they're all so young that criminal punishment would be counterproductive anyway. Plus, making a big production of it every time a kid cries "bully" just attracts attention to whatever the kid is being bullied for, and opens them up to even more widespread harassment down the road.

And then there's the factor of Todd's phsychological reaction to the whole thing. Kids that are bullied curl up inside and experience such extreme levels of shame that they don't want to talk about their experiences with ANYBODY...regardless of the damage it's causing them. Personal experience speaking there. In the Todd case specifically, I can easily see a situation where she's moved to a new school, the rumors have followed her, and she now feels like there's no escape no matter where she goes. Maybe she felt she didn't want to be a burden to her parents anymore...I mean, we can never know exactly what she was thinking because people under extreme stress get some crazy ideas about the world, but I suspect she was downplaying the extent of her predicament if nobody noticed she was getting beat up and tormented unto suicide.

It just isn't as simple as "the parents should have done more" or "the teachers should have done more"...saying that just shifts blame onto an easy scapegoat. Fact of the matter is, teachers are doing more. They take PD courses every year about bullying and what to look for and are very attentive to bullying in the school. Parents are more aware of bullying than ever and they do bring it to the attention of the schools. Problem is, it's not having the effect everyone seems to think it will. Kids still find a way to bully when parents and teachers aren't watching, and there's still very little anyone can do unless it's witnessed by a third party.

So I agree with the fellow from Vice Magazine that these cases should be treated with much more care by the press. Making this all about the bullying, it has everyone (including us) discussing what more the teachers/parents, if anything, could have done to prevent this. If media put more focus was on the real issue at the root of this problem, we'd be having a national discussion on internet predators and how to keep our kids from becoming victims of this particularly devastating version of extortion and abuse. The bullying was just an aftereffect and would not have occurred without the predation event that triggered it. Isn't it more productive to proactively correct roots of a problem than to simply react to its symptoms?

[D'rek]

cerveza_fiesta, on 26 October 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

The parents obviously were aware and concerned enough that they moved her to a new school, and probably did have a feeling the rumors might follow her. I'm sure the teachers were told about it too, and kept an eye out for Todd like they keep an eye out for the other 1000 kids attending the same school. If that somehow wasn't the case (which I doubt very much) then I grant you it was the teachers' and parents' fault for this specific incident. In general, no.

I know from family members and friends who are teachers that the bullying thing is unbelievably difficult to actually stop or catch, and that the school is very limited in what it can do. The schools get complaints from parents daily about bullying now and teachers all receive training on signs & symptoms to watch out for. The problem is that even with increased vigilance from teachers, kids find ways to do it when teachers *aren't* watching, when they're sure not to have any evidence brought against them aside from the testimony of another child. Then when it gets serious, the accused child's parents get involved and cry foul against the other kid's "lies" and in the end nothing happens because there's no conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing...and they're all so young that criminal punishment would be counterproductive anyway. Plus, making a big production of it every time a kid cries "bully" just attracts attention to whatever the kid is being bullied for, and opens them up to even more widespread harassment down the road.

For most similar cases, I would agree - teachers/parents can't be everywhere and most accusations turn into a you're-lying-no-you're-lying. And yes, it's easy for msot of these situations to go on completely unnoticed by the parents and teachers. But when it has gotten to the point of having to move to avoid it, I would expect the parent(s) at the new location to take some intense measures of either pro-actively trying to prevent it or of keeping a really close eye on the situation, whether or not their child is saying anything. And when you think that your daughter is being harassed online by her classmates, get on her facebook page (by whatever means), take screenshots of her classmates telling her to kill herself and go speak to their parents with print-outs in hand.

Now I don't know if Amanda Todd's parent(s) did that or not, I haven't seen any information indicating one way or another. But I would rather be hearing discussion of such steps, above, than loads of whining about how nobody could have done anything to prevent this. Maybe that is true, but isn't it better to be telling the public that they should TRY to check up on their kids and help them than that these tragedies are unavoidable?

cerveza_fiesta, on 26 October 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

So I agree with the fellow from Vice Magazine that these cases should be treated with much more care by the press. Making this all about the bullying, it has everyone (including us) discussing what more the teachers/parents, if anything, could have done to prevent this. If media put more focus was on the real issue at the root of this problem, we'd be having a national discussion on internet predators and how to keep our kids from becoming victims of this particularly devastating version of extortion and abuse. The bullying was just an aftereffect and would not have occurred without the predation event that triggered it. Isn't it more productive to proactively correct roots of a problem than to simply react to its symptoms?

Why can't we talk about both?

[Abyss]

I have little idea of what Todd's parents specifically did or failed to do.

As a general position, i think that if a child is raised by their family (whatever variation) in a certain way (and i interpret that very broadly), then short of physical elements a child may have no control over (ie: rape), that child should be pychologically and emotionally healthy enough to talk about their problems with their parents, confront them with their peers, and not internalize the level of stress that leads to 'cries for help' in the fucking internet.

Yes, parents (and teachers) can't be everywhere, can't see everything. I'm just of the view that they bloody well should be there when it's important, and that's not when the bullying is happening, rather it's every day of every year up until they send their child out of the nest to deal with the big bad world and every day after that when they are hurt, lost and confused and need someone to give them the tools to deal with it.

'Kids don't talk to their parents' is a sweeping generalization that overlooks the point that kids should be ABLE to talk to their parents and KNOW when they need to.
The only appropriate sweeping generalization is that a painfully high number of kids don't.


And before anyone raises it, for every ghetto dwelling low income single parent cleaning toilets while raising six childs by four different absentee sperm-sources who 'doen't have time to be there for the kids', there is one who made that time because they knew that was just as important as putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads, and their kids are the ones who will make it to adulthood intact no matter what stupid shit they do on the internet.

[Illuyankas]

The stuff appearing on my facebook feed of the same people both blaming Todd for being an easily manipulated child and defending Savile is pretty damn disgusting.

[King Lear]

Abyss, on 26 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

And before anyone raises it, for every ghetto dwelling low income single parent cleaning toilets while raising six childs by four different absentee sperm-sources who 'doen't have time to be there for the kids', there is one who made that time because they knew that was just as important as putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads, and their kids are the ones who will make it to adulthood intact no matter what stupid shit they do on the internet.

Sometimes I read things and I honestly don't know what the hell I'm reading. Why are poor single mothers who are assumed to not talk to their kids (because you know, working hard to care for your kids and caring for you kids are two different things) even entering this discussion?

It's not even about talking to their kids either. My parents are good parents. They talked to me when I was a teenager, and I didn't tell them shit. I can't imagine trying to initiate a conversation with my mum at the age of 12, having just hit puberty, and telling her some creep on the internet had a picture of my boobs and was trying to blackmail me with them to the point that I was getting physically beaten up at school. Admit the bullying, and try to convince them to switch schools perhaps but not the reason why it was happening in the first place. I don't think a lot of teenagers think their parents can help, especially when it come to internet related problems.
I know not everyone would be like me, but I'm pretty sure a large number of people would.

I don't think talking about what parents and teachers can do to prevent bullying and sexual harassment is productive. They're already doing everything they can! They don't want kids to commit suicide any more than we do! And looking at each separate case in hindsight and saying 'oh but the parents/teachers should have done this' is easy and pointless. Amanda Todd is dead, and while there will be similar situations, they will never be the same. And short of advocating never allowing children on the internet with supervision, I'm not sure what actually could be done, and quite frankly no one else knows either, judging from the numbers of people blaming parents and teachers compared to actual useful suggestions. In any case, it does make a difference. Sexual predators don't go away, they just find new ways to do what they do.

I've got solutions too, although no way of putting them into practise, and I doubt there will be a massive movement to try.
Put the blame where it belongs, on the actions of the arseholes who prey on and abuse kids. Find the sexual predators, and get them out of society. Lock them up, stick them all on pedo island and leave them their to rot, or shoot them, whatever. They don't change and they don't stop prey on the vulnerable.
And for fuck's sake teach kids and the rest of society to stop fetishising body parts. Especially those of children. They're there and everybody has them, whatever they have, why do we attach both shame and magical secret wonder to boobs, penises and vulvas? If people didn't attach value to ridiculous notions of being a 'slut' and virginity and bodies as a whole, that piece of shit who tried to blackmail Amanda Todd wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If people had gone 'Hey dude you're a fucking shit human being for sending me this picture of my classmate/friend's boobs in attempt to shame her' instead of going 'oh my god, someone has a picture of you barely pubescent chest Amanda you slut!' then maybe Amanda Todd wouldn't be dead.

Everyone has solutions after the fact I suppose.
Of course, no one them were there when Amanda Todd was begging on the internet for a friend. I imagine that most people, if they'd seen the video would have just thought she was being a melodramatic teenager and forgotten about it.

[Mrs Savagely Wishy Washy]

King Lear, on 26 October 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

I've got solutions too, although no way of putting them into practise, and I doubt there will be a massive movement to try.
Put the blame where it belongs, on the actions of the arseholes who prey on and abuse kids. Find the sexual predators, and get them out of society. Lock them up, stick them all on pedo island and leave them their to rot, or shoot them, whatever. They don't change and they don't stop prey on the vulnerable.

 Chain Gang A.jpeg (34.98K)
Number of downloads: 0


Water, bread, the whip. And cold water. That will deal with all kinds of trolls who in their spare time love to abuse people just for the fun of it. And I am sure there are enough roads that need fixing.
I'm serious.
Also, if it is in any way possible, this "internet community" or known members thereof should be made an example of and be punished severely.


Edit: Most importantly I forgot to mention the hard physical work aspect.

This post has been edited by Miss Savage: 27 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

[Abyss]

King Lear, on 26 October 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Abyss, on 26 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

And before anyone raises it, for every ghetto dwelling low income single parent cleaning toilets while raising six childs by four different absentee sperm-sources who 'doen't have time to be there for the kids', there is one who made that time because they knew that was just as important as putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads, and their kids are the ones who will make it to adulthood intact no matter what stupid shit they do on the internet.

Sometimes I read things and I honestly don't know what the hell I'm reading. Why are poor single mothers who are assumed to not talk to their kids (because you know, working hard to care for your kids and caring for you kids are two different things) even entering this discussion?

because in a separate discussion the other person raised this point that poor single mothers working hard to support their families don't have the time to educate their children about the internet and that's what schools are for, and i disagree with that position because this is about protection more than education and that's the parent's job more than the school's.

But if the point seemed too offside from the main discussion for you, feel free to disregard it.

Quote

It's not even about talking to their kids either. My parents are good parents. They talked to me when I was a teenager, and I didn't tell them shit. I can't imagine trying to initiate a conversation with my mum at the age of 12, having just hit puberty, and telling her some creep on the internet had a picture of my boobs and was trying to blackmail me with them to the point that I was getting physically beaten up at school. Admit the bullying, and try to convince them to switch schools perhaps but not the reason why it was happening in the first place. I don't think a lot of teenagers think their parents can help, especially when it come to internet related problems.
I know not everyone would be like me, but I'm pretty sure a large number of people would.

'I can't talk to my parents they don't understand anything' is the standard position of pretty much everyone between the ages of 11 and 21.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is that a parent is sufficiently engaged and paying attentiojn to their kid that they realize when something is wrong and do something about it before the situation gets worse.

Quote

....And for fuck's sake teach kids and the rest of society to stop fetishising body parts. Especially those of children. They're there and everybody has them, whatever they have, why do we attach both shame and magical secret wonder to boobs, penises and vulvas? If people didn't attach value to ridiculous notions of being a 'slut' and virginity and bodies as a whole, that piece of shit who tried to blackmail Amanda Todd wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Which brings us back to my point that if a teenage girl has parents who educate and support her, that girl can deal with those pieces of shit and essentially remove their power over her.

Your position seems to be, and correct me if i'm misreading your post, 'educate society but don't ask the teachers and parents because they are already doing everything they can' and that leaves me asking who else is left? The governments? Speaking generally, a govs' job is to ensure that there are teachers in schools who know what they're doing, and that more children than not have a parent-figure to guide them.

Quote

Everyone has solutions after the fact I suppose.
Of course, no one them were there when Amanda Todd was begging on the internet for a friend. I imagine that most people, if they'd seen the video would have just thought she was being a melodramatic teenager and forgotten about it.

Actually if i recall correctly Amada Todd's original video got more supportive and sympathetic responses than negative ones, the media just focuses on the odd sociopathic 14-yr old who posts 'dreenk bleech' (which raises the related issue of parents not monitoring what their kids are doing on the internet but that's yet another tangent). Yet even after all of that, she was still surfing the internet reading abusive garbage... and that's where i'm left wondering why.

[King Lear]

Abyss, on 29 October 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

King Lear, on 26 October 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Abyss, on 26 October 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

And before anyone raises it, for every ghetto dwelling low income single parent cleaning toilets while raising six childs by four different absentee sperm-sources who 'doen't have time to be there for the kids', there is one who made that time because they knew that was just as important as putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads, and their kids are the ones who will make it to adulthood intact no matter what stupid shit they do on the internet.

Sometimes I read things and I honestly don't know what the hell I'm reading. Why are poor single mothers who are assumed to not talk to their kids (because you know, working hard to care for your kids and caring for you kids are two different things) even entering this discussion?

because in a separate discussion the other person raised this point that poor single mothers working hard to support their families don't have the time to educate their children about the internet and that's what schools are for, and i disagree with that position because this is about protection more than education and that's the parent's job more than the school's.

But if the point seemed too offside from the main discussion for you, feel free to disregard it.

Yeah, assuming working mothers don't have time to educate their children about the internet is a bizarre and shitty assumption about poor people. Parents who don't know much about the internet on the other hand are not as able to educate their kids about it. And they don't have to be poor.

Quote

Quote

It's not even about talking to their kids either. My parents are good parents. They talked to me when I was a teenager, and I didn't tell them shit. I can't imagine trying to initiate a conversation with my mum at the age of 12, having just hit puberty, and telling her some creep on the internet had a picture of my boobs and was trying to blackmail me with them to the point that I was getting physically beaten up at school. Admit the bullying, and try to convince them to switch schools perhaps but not the reason why it was happening in the first place. I don't think a lot of teenagers think their parents can help, especially when it come to internet related problems.
I know not everyone would be like me, but I'm pretty sure a large number of people would.

'I can't talk to my parents they don't understand anything' is the standard position of pretty much everyone between the ages of 11 and 21.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is that a parent is sufficiently engaged and paying attention to their kid that they realize when something is wrong and do something about it before the situation gets worse.

I still don't think that's fair. I only have my own experience and the experience of people I know to go by, so it's all anecdotal, but some kids are really good at hiding really awful things from their parents, and when their parents do notice something is wrong they put it down to the kid acting out because they're a teenager rather than something more sinister. It happened to me, and it happened to a bunch of my friends, some of whom are only just at a point where they can deal with serious trauma ten years later. Some kids are have it a bit easier, my brother has a couple of things he only ever does when he's really upset, so when he was a teenager it was really easy to talk to him about things. But a lot of kids don't, and I feel like the worse things are the more they try and hide it.

Ugh, I'm not being very clear here. I feel like there are a set of behaviours expected from teenagers, and even when that's taken to extremes, there is an expectation that it is normal developmental behaviour, and that's a parents first assumption, rather than that your child is suffering from mental illness or is being stalked by a 'family friend' or has been raped or is being bullied for circumstances beyond their control or for reasons you as a parent don't really understand.

But I think this is aside from the point actually, since apparently the first time they found out about the picture being sent out was a 4am call by police.

Quote

Quote

....And for fuck's sake teach kids and the rest of society to stop fetishising body parts. Especially those of children. They're there and everybody has them, whatever they have, why do we attach both shame and magical secret wonder to boobs, penises and vulvas? If people didn't attach value to ridiculous notions of being a 'slut' and virginity and bodies as a whole, that piece of shit who tried to blackmail Amanda Todd wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Which brings us back to my point that if a teenage girl has parents who educate and support her, that girl can deal with those pieces of shit and essentially remove their power over her.

Your position seems to be, and correct me if i'm misreading your post, 'educate society but don't ask the teachers and parents because they are already doing everything they can' and that leaves me asking who else is left? The governments? Speaking generally, a govs' job is to ensure that there are teachers in schools who know what they're doing, and that more children than not have a parent-figure to guide them.

Your assumption is that they didn't support and educate her, and you have no way of knowing whether that's true or not. Your reasoning seems to be that because she committed suicide, that she must not have had anyone to support her. Have you ever been part of a support system for someone who's a suicide risk? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just feel like you don't really understand how powerless these people sometimes are and how even being there is sometimes not enough. Besides, by the time that she committed suicide, Amanda Todd wasn't even in school.

In answer to your question, I don't really know. I guess I want society to educate itself and think critically about its reaction to what's happened here and apply it more widely. Why does society hear and think more about what's wrong with Amanda Todd than what's wrong with the guy who stalked her? Using people's bodies to humiliate them is wrong, and we allow it happen because we buy into the fetishisation of sex and bodies and body-parts. Look at Tyler Clementi, whose his roommate used his webcam to film him because he decided that because he suspected Tyler Clementi to be gay, that it was somehow okay, and contacted people to set up a viewing party, including instructions on how to get remote access. People's body-parts don't disappear when you can't see them, and people's sexuality doesn't go away when they're not fucking. But society as a whole is not prone to asking critical questions of itself.

At the same time I don't think asking theoretically monolithic but actually fragmented and amorphous groups like 'the government' or 'teachers' or 'parents' to 'do something' as if the responsibility for children not getting sexually abused was solely theirs is anything but pointing fingers. The sole 'responsibility' for sexual abuse lies at the feet of the abusers and those who allow them to continue their behaviour unchecked. Also I don't think those groups have the power to change anything until we change some fundamental thinking within society. They can help, I suppose, but change doesn't generally come from government or parents. Teachers maybe, but they need permission from government and parents first. And you need to invest more in teachers, and given the general worldwide trend in cutting funds to education it's not going to happen. It's a bit like herding cats.

Quote

Quote

Everyone has solutions after the fact I suppose.
Of course, no one them were there when Amanda Todd was begging on the internet for a friend. I imagine that most people, if they'd seen the video would have just thought she was being a melodramatic teenager and forgotten about it.

Actually if i recall correctly Amada Todd's original video got more supportive and sympathetic responses than negative ones, the media just focuses on the odd sociopathic 14-yr old who posts 'dreenk bleech' (which raises the related issue of parents not monitoring what their kids are doing on the internet but that's yet another tangent). Yet even after all of that, she was still surfing the internet reading abusive garbage... and that's where i'm left wondering why.

I can't actually find anything about the initial responses to the video, and haven't seen anything about them. I'd be surprised if they were mostly positive though, given the usual calibre of youtube comments. I tried trawling backward through comments, but there's thousands of them and there's only so much accidentally reading of 'STUPID SLUT DESERVES TO DIE' that I can handle. And that was around 40 pages and I'd still only gone back 3 days.
Besides, said odd sociopathic 14 year old also had a number of supportive responses... As did the person who released Amanda Todd's naked autopsy photos....
And that's why 'why was Amanda Todd still on the internet' is not really on my list of important questions to ask.


Sorry if this is a bit meandering/incoherent in places. I'm not generally particularly articulate.

Edit: Finally found the words (elsewhere) that explain what I'm trying to say.
The man who tried to blackmail Amanda Todd, and made her life a misery was able to rely on our judgement as a society to shame her. And that's what needs to change. And when she stood up to him by refusing his demands, then she felt the full force of that judgement. And that's what we're telling people like her, and people like him, when we question what was wrong with her and her parents and her teachers, instead what was wrong with him, and the people who bullied her as a result of what he did.

This post has been edited by King Lear: 30 October 2012 - 01:29 AM

[Silencer]

Quote

*snip*

Edit: Finally found the words (elsewhere) that explain what I'm trying to say.
The man who tried to blackmail Amanda Todd, and made her life a misery was able to rely on our judgement as a society to shame her. And that's what needs to change. And when she stood up to him by refusing his demands, then she felt the full force of that judgement. And that's what we're telling people like her, and people like him, when we question what was wrong with her and her parents and her teachers, instead what was wrong with him, and the people who bullied her as a result of what he did.

A good point; I however would contend that people don't focus on that because it's obvious. And it's also a horrible truth.

I know you're kinda like me, KL, in that you avoid NZ Herald like the plague, but I just read the headlines for today. All I can say is; there's no hope for the human race, if this is the crap that goes on every day in this country. Some woman got carjacked today by a gang of armed youths "some as young as eight years old". Eight. What the fuck? Why is this relevant? Because the unfortunate, horrible truth is that some people are dicks, some people are assholes, and others are just fucking sick. And changing the makeup of our society CANNOT be fixed; not without infringing on the much-vaunted "human rights", not without going to extreme lengths to "re-educate" people into nicer, more palatable existences.

Should the perpetrator(s) of this crime against Amanda Todd, which relied upon and used very effectively the baser human natures of our society, be punished for what they've done? Of course they should. But where is the line drawn? What is effective? What will be "too far"? And what happens when "effective" and "too far" are one and the same? I agree (for once) pretty fully with what you've said (mainly because it has that delicious caveat that judgement in hindsight is hardly fair, as to who could have done what differently ); I unfortunately just cannot see a way to respond to this problem effectively and reasonably - and that's the issue at hand with the wider "bullying" problem too, btw - in that actually tackling bullying is a task so daunting it is deemed "impossible" by default - and that's just plain depressing.


(Also, society as a whole is not good at critically assessing itself. Just to address that point that you made. Too much effort, not enough point. Welcome to the world of the apathetic human race, etc, etc.)

[D'rek]

King Lear, on 30 October 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

Parents who don't know much about the internet on the other hand are not as able to educate their kids about it. And they don't have to be poor.

Going back to the topic of how the media is covering this, maybe this is something the media could have actually been talking about - spend some time doing actual journalism to uncover what methods unbiasedly do and do not work for educating your kids about the internet, even if you are not a technically-savvy parent yourself.

King Lear, on 30 October 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

Quote

Quote

It's not even about talking to their kids either. My parents are good parents. They talked to me when I was a teenager, and I didn't tell them shit. I can't imagine trying to initiate a conversation with my mum at the age of 12, having just hit puberty, and telling her some creep on the internet had a picture of my boobs and was trying to blackmail me with them to the point that I was getting physically beaten up at school. Admit the bullying, and try to convince them to switch schools perhaps but not the reason why it was happening in the first place. I don't think a lot of teenagers think their parents can help, especially when it come to internet related problems.
I know not everyone would be like me, but I'm pretty sure a large number of people would.

'I can't talk to my parents they don't understand anything' is the standard position of pretty much everyone between the ages of 11 and 21.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is that a parent is sufficiently engaged and paying attention to their kid that they realize when something is wrong and do something about it before the situation gets worse.

I still don't think that's fair. I only have my own experience and the experience of people I know to go by, so it's all anecdotal, but some kids are really good at hiding really awful things from their parents, and when their parents do notice something is wrong they put it down to the kid acting out because they're a teenager rather than something more sinister. It happened to me, and it happened to a bunch of my friends, some of whom are only just at a point where they can deal with serious trauma ten years later. Some kids are have it a bit easier, my brother has a couple of things he only ever does when he's really upset, so when he was a teenager it was really easy to talk to him about things. But a lot of kids don't, and I feel like the worse things are the more they try and hide it.

Ugh, I'm not being very clear here. I feel like there are a set of behaviours expected from teenagers, and even when that's taken to extremes, there is an expectation that it is normal developmental behaviour, and that's a parents first assumption, rather than that your child is suffering from mental illness or is being stalked by a 'family friend' or has been raped or is being bullied for circumstances beyond their control or for reasons you as a parent don't really understand.

But I think this is aside from the point actually, since apparently the first time they found out about the picture being sent out was a 4am call by police.

Right, but in this case she had already moved because of it and was seeing a counselor. How could the parent(s) be unaware of it? It's hard to believe that a reasonable and concerned parent could brush off those two things alone as "normal developmental behaviour" and not take any efforts to monitor their child's environment.