stalking how far is too far?

[prplchknz]

Whatever the other person isn't comfortable with. More importantly, everyone knows when they are going too far. They either accept it and stop (and change things around so they don't end up in that situation again), or they sink into denial trying to rationalize their actions as though there's nothing wrong with what they are doing. Either way, if you don't know if you've gone too far, then assume you have.

I click on Facebook profiles all the time. Clicking on Facebook profile with some ulterior/rotten motive in mind is going too far. The act may be harmless by itself, but obviously the person is then up to no good. If you're looking through someone's information to find some dirt about them, or to get more information on them, then you've gone too far. If you're Googling them, then you've gone too far. Following someone around is going too far. There are those that are just curious about the person and don't really mean anything (oh please), but it's still sketchy. Staring is going too far. I do what could be considered staring (from a distance) when I'm trying to get a read on someone, or when I'm trying to figure something out and am taking the person in, and while I'm not really up to no good, it still seems questionable. Doing things to end up around the person, or to have the person always be around you is going too far.

If your having to ask the other person if you're violating their space or creeping them out, then you've probably gone too far.

Whoever keeps following me around as though there's nothing wrong with what you're doing: you're way out there, you're going too far, you've gone too far, and you know it. Fuck off!

if i'm clicking on someone's profile of course I want to know something about that. to pretend that isn't true would be completely delusional. my thing is if you don't want people to know don't put it on the internet, it's that simple. I wouldn't break into someones house though. You really think wanting to know about someone = stalking? please that's not even close.

most people will read your social media if given the chance
barely any will break into your house and read your diary

 

[baccheion]

if i'm clicking on someone's profile of course I want to know something about that. to pretend that isn't true would be completely delusional. my thing is if you don't want people to know don't put it on the internet, it's that simple. I wouldn't break into someones house though. You really think wanting to know about someone = stalking? please that's not even close.

most people will read your social media if given the chance
barely any will break into your house and read your diary

No, I don't think wanting to know about someone = stalking. It doesn't take long before the desire to know about someone or being curious about them turns into something creepy and it doesn't take much before it's just plain spying/stalking.

 

[prplchknz]

No, I don't think wanting to know about someone = stalking. It doesn't take long before the desire to know about someone or being curious about them turns into something creepy and it doesn't take much before it's just plain spying/stalking.

I still say if you don't want people to know don't put it online.

 

[Pionart]

I was stalked on MBTI forums. Don't ask me why I still come on them...

It's too far when you're intentionally trying to make a victims life hell.

 

[prplchknz]

I was stalked on MBTI forums. Don't ask me why I still come on them...

It's too far when you're intentionally trying to make a victims life hell.

of course. that is too far

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

this article it's obvious the author goes entirely too far. 'Am I being catfished?' An author confronts her number one online critic | Books | The Guardian

I read that article a few days ago and it made me so angry that I started to twitch. It must be me, but I'm utterly astonished that people largely paint the author as the villain in this story and think that she went too far. The online critic in this story is evil with a capital E, and short of physical violence, I can't think of something the author would do in retaliation that I would deem "too far". This wasn't just a case of "wahh, someone hates my book." This was a group of organized bullies who go around trying to destroy people for fun. I don't get how people like that earn the right to be portrayed sympathetically, or even as the lesser of two evils. Kathleen Hale didn't ask for this. She was victimized.

 

[prplchknz]

I read that article a few days ago and it made me so angry that I started to twitch. It must be me, but I'm utterly astonished that people largely paint the author as the villain in this story and think that she went too far. The online critic in this story is evil with a capital E, and short of physical violence, I can't think of something the author would do in retaliation that I would deem "too far". This wasn't just a case of "wahh, someone hates my book." This was a group of organized bullies who go around trying to destroy people for fun. I don't get how people like that earn the right to be portrayed sympathetically, or even as the lesser of two evils. Kathleen Hale didn't ask for this. She was victimized.

ok fine, then Hale should have either ignored her or reported the girl to the authorities or whatever, but her going to the house does not look good

so you're pretty much saying it's ok for me to dous people in spoiled milk if they don't like what i'm wearing?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

ok fine, then Hale should have either ignored her or reported the girl to the authorities or whatever, but her going to the house does not look good

so you're pretty much saying it's ok for me to dous people in spoiled milk if they don't like what i'm wearing?

Not only is that not what I'm saying, I don't even know how you got from A to B with that.

 

[prplchknz]

Not only is that not what I'm saying, I don't even know how you got from A to B with that.

easy the harrasment was happening online. well the blythe lady got what she wanted. it looks like. so i guess it's a moot point. had she not going to blythe's house or written the article she'd probably be in the clear. she actually made things worse by doing so.

 

[Oaky]

Probably about 500 miles is too far.. or 500 more.

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2jbd4e/where_could_the_proclaimers_walk_if_they_would/

 

[Serendipity]

More importantly, everyone knows when they are going too far. They either accept it and stop (and change things around so they don't end up in that situation again), or they sink into denial trying to rationalize their actions as though there's nothing wrong with what they are doing. Either way, if you don't know if you've gone too far, then assume you have.

Watch out, some insecure people out there would take that as actual advice and not move a muscle in the future. (Could have been me, in a not so distant past)


Also, non-bolded: Everyone. This statement must be based on your own experiences. Not everyone are able to tell. Simple as that.

I believe it is best to ask, if one wonders. While you don't want to be poured hot red wax on your body while you are naked, does not imply there might not be another who does.

 

[chubber]

I think the line is a mixture between individual and societal and it all stems from the potential for something bad to happen. Stalking is harmless unless there's a negative motivation for it--even if that motivation is "I like this person--but I'm unaware that they don't like me."

Society has their own wavering standards. For example, when FB first came out (before I got on it) people were saying how creepy it was for someone else to check out their page and mention that they had. Now, it's pretty normal for that to happen, and almost expected considering potential fraudulent dating site people and such. So, there's societal standards... which are vague in and of themselves.

And then there's individuals. For example, I'd find it a bit creepy for someone to follow me physically around anywhere without coming up and talking to me. But another girl might find it sort of intriguing and mysterious if it's done the right way.. like a simple, plain flirting. I don't find it creepy at all that I absorb information online of others--following their posts, reading their interests, etc. etc. But someone else might find it super creepy and weird that I'm taking the time to 'research' all of that.

So, basically, if the person feels threatened, that's pretty much where the line is. Outside of that, who the stalkee is and how attractive the stalker(s) is/are make all the difference.

QFT

 

[Serendipity]

ok fine, then Hale should have either ignored her or reported the girl to the authorities or whatever, but her going to the house does not look good

so you're pretty much saying it's ok for me to dous people in spoiled milk if they don't like what i'm wearing?

I'm with FMUU, I don't see the negative in going to someone's house who has openly caused distress and disharmony.

When did we start leaving everything to the "authorities" ?


"The harassment happened online" and this be the sole reason not to call on it?

Looks like both parties came out of the ordeal a little richer.

 

[prplchknz]

I'm with FMUU, I don't see the negative in going to someone's house who has openly caused distress and disharmony.

When did we start leaving everything to the "authorities" ?


"The harassment happened online" and this be the sole reason not to call on it?

Looks like both parties came out of the ordeal a little richer.

you really don't see the negative? A bunch of people are pissed at hale for doing so, aren't you one of those people who gets upset and hides behind a proxy? I mean that says "hey I don't want someone coming to my house" I'm saying that perhaps Blythe would have destroyed her career, even if she hadn't shown up. but her shown up and writing the article defiently destroyed her career.

 

[Serendipity]

you really don't see the negative? A bunch of people are pissed at hale for doing so, aren't you one of those people who gets upset and hides behind a proxy? I mean that says "hey I don't want someone coming to my house" I'm saying that perhaps Blythe would have destroyed her career, even if she hadn't shown up. but her shown up and writing the article defiently destroyed her career.

Who gets upset and hide behind a proxy? Where are you coming from here?

That says some thing but most of my actions also don't poke at a burning fire with my bare hands. Yeah, I don't see the problem.

To me, it sounds as if you are saying that it is okay to shoot someone and then hide behind the law and mention that you are a cop. Or cause mental trauma from psychic abuse and get away with it, because they hide at their neighbours house. This is of course not what you are saying, or so I hope, and you will have to share your mind a little more because I do not see your viewpoint from where I am standing.

A bunch of people are pissed. Yeah, that happens a lot in this life. Suddenly, a bunch of people are pissed at someone who picked themselves through an ordeal and wrote an article about it because they thought this behavior was wrong. Basically condemning this behavior. We do it all the time. Apparently, especially reviewers seem to be explicitly above criticism (according to this article).

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I think when someone follows you from thread to thread, especially on different forums it would constitute a form of stalking. I think it has to do with specific targeting. For example, being on the same forum or device or site is not stalking but actually going to a thread and targeting an individual and trying to debase them using personal matters is a form of stalking that could probably be upheld in court.

 

[prplchknz]

Who gets upset and hide behind a proxy? Where are you coming from here?

That says some thing but most of my actions also don't poke at a burning fire with my bare hands. Yeah, I don't see the problem.

To me, it sounds as if you are saying that it is okay to shoot someone and then hide behind the law and mention that you are a cop. Or cause mental trauma from psychic abuse and get away with it, because they hide at their neighbours house. This is of course not what you are saying, or so I hope, and you will have to share your mind a little more because I do not see your viewpoint from where I am standing.

A bunch of people are pissed. Yeah, that happens a lot in this life. Suddenly, a bunch of people are pissed at someone who picked themselves through an ordeal and wrote an article about it because they thought this behavior was wrong. Basically condemning this behavior. We do it all the time. Apparently, especially reviewers seem to be explicitly above criticism (according to this article).

not what I'm saying at all. but there is a difference between shooting someone and harrassing them online. and the fact is we don't have the critics side of the story only the author's. I don't think the critic should have done what she done. But writing stuff online, instead of getting involved the author could've proved the critic wrong through other actions. or hell met the critic somewhere and had a dialogue if the critic was willing. no where did I see her extend that offer to the critic.

 

[prplchknz]

I think when someone follows you from thread to thread, especially on different forums it would constitute a form of stalking. I think it has to do with specific targeting. For example, being on the same forum or device or site is not stalking but actually going to a thread and targeting an individual and trying to debase them using personal matters is a form of stalking that could probably be upheld in court.

do you ever worry that if you show up 5 times in the same thread as a different user you begin to worry they'll think you're stalking them. so you start holding back?

 

[Serendipity]

not what I'm saying at all. but there is a difference between shooting someone and harrassing them online. and the fact is we don't have the critics side of the story only the author's. I don't think the critic should have done what she done. But writing stuff online, instead of getting involved the author could've proved the critic wrong through other actions. or hell met the critic somewhere and had a dialogue if the critic was willing. no where did I see her extend that offer to the critic.

I gotta re-read it because I felt she did but if she didn't, you are 85% correct and I agree with you.

 

[prplchknz]

I gotta re-read it because I felt she did but if she didn't, you are 85% correct and I agree with you.

tbh I didn't want to focus on the article, I just linked it to give the thread a sort of baseline. but I too should re-read it.

I started re-reading the article got distracted by a link to an anti-bully site saw blythe went to her profile, which is set to private. and I noticed that her average rating is 3.75 and so I'm not sure any more. How much of it is she didn't like the book and how much of it was an actual attack on the author?


and you're right she did. I hate the media. I will never be famous for this reason. that and I'm not talented