<p>Suppose I make the following statement: "There should be no quota for women or minorities in any sort of company, people should be hired based on their capabilities, regardless of their gender or skin color".</p>

<p>There are people who are going to disagree with that. There could be a discussion about it and things could be learned from said discussion, while people respect each other's rights to have a different opinion.</p>

<p>And then there are going to be people who not only disagree, but claim to be offended by it in such a way that they feel it necessary to try and ruin people's lives for adhering to said opinion. Who will try to find your personal information and post it online in the hopes that someone attacks you for sharing said opinion. This is a practice known as "doxxing". They will send anonymous death threats and go to sites like reddit or forums which have a userbase which they agree with, share the URL in which you stated this opinion, in an attempt to get as many people as possible in on trying to destroy your life.</p>

<p>These people seem to believe this vigilante behavior is somehow justified and necessary. That instead of discussion and education and even questioning their own beliefs, the way to achieve your goals is by eradicating all opposition.</p>

<p>So my question is: is this system of going after someone because they have an opinion you don't like, a indicator of a psychological disorder? If so, which one?</p>

<p>And finally, where do people learn that this is acceptable behavior?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-02T17:17:27.100Z
It sounds more like indignation than a mental disorder.  It's something everybody is capable of when they feel they are in the right and someone else is in the wrong.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-02T18:26:28.140Z
@KeeganKeplinger The term "Indignation" has an innocent ring to it. I associate that more with feeling bad about something but leaving it at that. I'm describing a situation where people go out of their way to make you look like a horrible person, even post where you live online in the hopes that someone decides to use that information to find you and hurt you.

I feel like you didn't read my entire text, just the headline.
KdgDev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-05T09:06:56.493Z
@what "The question is very general and all-encompassing." No, it is very specific for one kind of behavior. The examples are indeed extreme, though that has nothing to do with their credibility. This happens every single day. Your argument about the question is baseless. You yourself made the argument earlier that it is bad to interpret other people's actions by your own viewpoint and now you're doing exactly that. A question doesn't assume anything. It is a question. Anything extra you are making up.
KdgDev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-24T22:55:05.347Z
According to the statement in the original post everybody I know is a damn freak and so am I.
Tomáš Zato
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-26T10:37:45.573Z
@TomášZato you're the first person to use that term. Calling people with a potential mental disorder "freaks" like you just did does not help anyone. Like I already said: questions do not judge anything. People who interpret the questions are the ones doing the judging. The statement is an example for the question. Nothing more. Anything else you see is your imagination.
KdgDev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-26T12:58:58.490Z
@KdgDev false diagnosis is much worse than calling somebody freak.
Tomáš Zato
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-26T13:04:09.483Z
@TomášZato Yet there is no actual diagnosis happening here. A question is being asked about a possible correlation. And that's all there's to it. If anyone here has been being authoritative about other people, it's you.
KdgDev
<social-psychology>
Is being "hyper"-offended, no matter the cause, an indicator that someone might be a socio-/psychopath?
KdgDev
# Is being "hyper"-offended, no matter the cause, an indicator that someone might be a socio-/psychopath?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-11-02)

Suppose I make the following statement: "There should be no quota for women or minorities in any sort of company, people should be hired based on their capabilities, regardless of their gender or skin color".

There are people who are going to disagree with that. There could be a discussion about it and things could be learned from said discussion, while people respect each other's rights to have a different opinion.

And then there are going to be people who not only disagree, but claim to be offended by it in such a way that they feel it necessary to try and ruin people's lives for adhering to said opinion. Who will try to find your personal information and post it online in the hopes that someone attacks you for sharing said opinion. This is a practice known as "doxxing". They will send anonymous death threats and go to sites like reddit or forums which have a userbase which they agree with, share the URL in which you stated this opinion, in an attempt to get as many people as possible in on trying to destroy your life.

These people seem to believe this vigilante behavior is somehow justified and necessary. That instead of discussion and education and even questioning their own beliefs, the way to achieve your goals is by eradicating all opposition.

So my question is: is this system of going after someone because they have an opinion you don't like, a indicator of a psychological disorder? If so, which one?

And finally, where do people learn that this is acceptable behavior?

**Tags:** social-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It sounds more like indignation than a mental disorder.  It's something everybody is capable of when they feel they are in the right and someone else is in the wrong.  
> **username_0**: @KeeganKeplinger The term "Indignation" has an innocent ring to it. I associate that more with feeling bad about something but leaving it at that. I'm describing a situation where people go out of their way to make you look like a horrible person, even post where you live online in the hopes that someone decides to use that information to find you and hurt you.  I feel like you didn't read my entire text, just the headline.  
> **username_0**: @what "The question is very general and all-encompassing." No, it is very specific for one kind of behavior. The examples are indeed extreme, though that has nothing to do with their credibility. This happens every single day. Your argument about the question is baseless. You yourself made the argument earlier that it is bad to interpret other people's actions by your own viewpoint and now you're doing exactly that. A question doesn't assume anything. It is a question. Anything extra you are making up.  
> **username_2**: According to the statement in the original post everybody I know is a damn freak and so am I.  
> **username_0**: @TomášZato you're the first person to use that term. Calling people with a potential mental disorder "freaks" like you just did does not help anyone. Like I already said: questions do not judge anything. People who interpret the questions are the ones doing the judging. The statement is an example for the question. Nothing more. Anything else you see is your imagination.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 false diagnosis is much worse than calling somebody freak.  
> **username_0**: @TomášZato Yet there is no actual diagnosis happening here. A question is being asked about a possible correlation. And that's all there's to it. If anyone here has been being authoritative about other people, it's you.  

---

## 0 answers

