5 Ways To Seek Digital Revenge On An Ex

Nemesis
wrote on September 26 2008 @ 12:59 pm: [report]

Of course, if a guy did illegal things to a girl he broke up with, he’d be arrested for harrasment. But it’s ok for women. They deserve a pass, because they’re such poor widdle victims.

abbylyn
wrote on September 26 2008 @ 01:59 pm: [report]

@nemesis: I’m pretty sure none of these are illegal…

Nemesis
wrote on September 27 2008 @ 06:06 am: [report]

abblyn:

Egging someone’s car is illegal. It’s called vandalism, which is defacing or destroying someone’s (or the state’s, city’s, etc) personal property. For example - if you were to spray paint something on the front of some’s house without their consent, you would, if caught by the authorities, be charged with vandalism.

Duh.

As a single male, I’d like to start a rational, if spirited, dialogue about relationships with some of the people here. I do not think that will be possible, however, if people don’t have even a basic grasp of reality. Perhaps I should go somewhere else . . .

Here’s a question. Even if a particular act were not illegal, but nonetheless distasteful or harmful, would it be OK for you to commit that act?

This question requires a basic examination of one’s moral attitudes and beliefs. I know that we live in a morally relativist society that stresses one’s ‘feelings’ over one’s obligations to others(unfortunately), but it is necessary from time to time to cast this worthless ideology aside in order for us to live in a civil society.

Here’s a simple and alternate way to ask yourself the question: ‘How would I feel if someone did it to me?’

We learned this in the third grade, back when school wasn’t a therapy session and we were actually taught things.

Nemesis
wrote on September 27 2008 @ 06:16 am: [report]

I should also mention that Ms. Epstein would certainly not be happy if her own tactics were launched against her. She might not be incensed, but it would be irrational to say that she would be thrilled. I sense a good amount of moral and intellectual dishonesty in her article.

Another point: If a man were to write an article informing other men how to seek digital revenge against their exes, he would be excoriated and labelled a pig and an abuser. Think about this . . .

Overall, this seems to be a satire oriented website where girls come to be snarky and vindictive. That’s a shame. A lot more can be accomplished by examining one’s own motives and values, whatever they may be.

Sarah
wrote on September 27 2008 @ 08:15 am: [report]

I’ve had thoughts about doing some of these things or similar to an ex of mine after he treated me like crap, but doesn’t it just seem petty? It doesn’t matter if you’re not doing something illegal; in the end, nothing is getting changed. Just move on and find someone worth your time.

Nemesis
wrote on September 27 2008 @ 08:44 am: [report]

Sarah;

Doing these things does seem petty, which is a good point. But there is more to it than that. It’s not only whether or not one’s actions have a point, but whether or not one’s actions are right or wrong in and of themselves. One can perform a negative action and in fact have a point in mind, and that point can be negative ot positive. That does not excuse or rationalize the action simply because the person had a point. So, to look at the situation solely within the framework of, ‘Well what’s the point of doing that?’ is not really a correct way of viewing things. To look at the situation within the framework of, ‘If I have a point, is it morally and intellectualy valid in and of itself, and do my actions justify making that point?’ is more of a correct (and ethically traditional) way of viewing things.

These days we are taught to judge our actions, particularly in these kinds of circumstances, as to what they can gain strictly FOR OURSELVES, rather than how they affect those around us. This kind of radical narcissism via ‘self fulfillment’ that’s being inculcated in young people is very dangerous, and leads to a barbaric society whose people are incapable of the objectivity necessary to live productively with one another. It is also a very intellectually stunted way of viewing things, because one tends to stop at the boundaries of one’s own emotions without considering all the angles.

As far as feeling justified in doing wrongs to people who have wronged you, that’s a very slipppery slope. It’s a short jump from doing wrong to those who ‘deserve it’ to those who don’t deserve it.
Human nature will more often than not widen its definition of those who do wrong than narow its definition. Plus, negative actions usually engender negative consequences.

Again, I appeal to the basic ethical tenets we were taught when we were young, before the days of Dr. Phil:

1) Do unto others as you would have them do onto you.

2) Two wrongs do not make a right.

Davin Peterson
wrote on September 30 2008 @ 05:48 am: [report]

iTunes isn’t the only music store. We’ve got to stop relaying on Apple for our music needs. What about Creative, inventor of the iPod interface?

Amazon, Napster, eMusic and Rhapsody support DRMFree music, which means any player can use it, where as iTunes doesn’t. So, ditch iTunes as it sucks

Lee
wrote on September 30 2008 @ 05:57 am: [report]

The article says nothing about egging someone’s car so where did that even come from??

Nemesis
wrote on September 30 2008 @ 11:40 am: [report]

Lee,

Like, OMG, the article does, like, in fact mention egging someone’s car . . .

” There are the obvious ways to express that emotion—egging his car, throwing his belongings out a window, changing your locks.”

Regardless, do you have any response to the other things I said, or are you too confused? Perhaps there’s a little too much ‘garbage generation’ detritus floating around in your head for you to focus.

For Pete’s sake, someone turn a lightbulb on in here!

Dana
wrote on September 30 2008 @ 12:31 pm: [report]

Nemesis-

And you thought that by insulting Lee you are making your point stronger. To me it seems you’re no better than the author of the article. Simply doing things to make yourself feel better.

Nemesis
wrote on September 30 2008 @ 12:55 pm: [report]

Dana:

No, I’m doing what smarter generations before us did; giving someone a swat upside the head to wake them up and make them use their brains. I rely on those close to me to do the same thing when I’m not firing on all cylinders. That is why they are my friends. True friends don’t let friends live in ignorance, even when they insist on doing so.

I, for one, often like to be considerate of people’s feelings. But I do not like to be considerate of people’s feelings if that means brooking ignorance, laziness, and unethical behavior. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The therapeutic industry has done so for years now, and you can see the results.

No one here has really addressed or refuted any of my propositions anyway. What I’m really trying to do is start a conversation about ethics. Using relationships as a starting point is a good way of doing so, because relationships tend to encompass many ethical questions.

Does anyone here have any idea of ethics at all? Do you believe in the ‘categorical imperative?’ Are you ‘nihilists?’ Are you ‘moral reletavists?’ What do you believe? Do you have any personal philosophies to defend, or are you just living from moment to moment? Are you even interested in any of this? What makes an action right? What makes an action wrong? Are some acts inherently good, or evil? Do the ends justify the means, or are the means in and of themselves subject to judgement despite the ends?

Or will you come to yet another ethical crossroads in your lives with no philosophy to guide you, hoping that ‘Things will just turn out OK’ if you wing it?

That’s a pretty sorry way to live, my friends.

Lady T
wrote on October 1 2008 @ 08:03 am: [report]

So Nemesis, let me get this right you are upset because a woman wrote this and you feel like had a man made such suggestions then he would be labeled as a pig…

well, when a woman sleeps with a man or perhaps God forbid more than one in her lifetime she is labeled a whore…if a guy is with multiple women he is labeled a Stud…ummmm small price to pay if yu ask me…

So I would take “Pig” and run with it!

jhnjmetal@gmail.com
wrote on October 1 2008 @ 09:12 am: [report]

Lady T:

So then what you’re saying is that two wrongs make a right. I am not judging you on this. One can think this is a valid moral tenet or not. I will say, however, that the moral tenet that two wrongs make a right is implicit in your reasoning. Do you stand by this opinion? If you don’t, then I would find that hard to reconcile with your statement. If you do, do think this should be the case in all situations, or just some situations?

You are also connecting the two events or situations in a moral sense. Did you do this purposely? I, for one, do not connect the two events or situations, and believe that a correct way of reasoning would be to let them stand on their own merits, or lack thereof, and judge accordingly. While some situations are indeed connected either morally or coincidentally, some are not. One has to examine all situations individually and in connection with one another to see whether or not this is the case.

I’ve often heard women trot out the exact ‘reasoning’ that you have (i.e. ‘men are studs but women are whores’). This is, in truth, not reasoning at all, but caterwauling, and truthfully it’s quite lazy. All this statement really implies is that “Men are allowed to be pigs so women should be allowed to be pigs too.” Again, this is a moral tenet, and you have to ask yourself whether or not you believe it. You must DIG DEEPER into your own statements to find your own beliefs within them.

Plus, I should add that the whole line of ‘reasoning’ you’ve put forth is fairly adolescent. Really now, unless you’re a teenager, you can do better than this. Come on! I have faith in you! Be daring!

BTW - ‘Players’ don’t receive anywhere near the amount of props from society that women claim they do. Perhaps in trashy men’s magazines, but, like women’s magazines, these media outlets exist primarily to sell us things by appealing to our baser natures and insecurities. Ignore the media and concentrate on what YOU think, not what others think.

And, there wouldn’t be players if there weren’t women willing to play the game. When women complain about players, they need to take a closer look at themselves. When it comes to the casual sex game, there are no victims, only volunteers.

Nemesis
wrote on October 1 2008 @ 09:42 am: [report]

Really now, this is what I’m after. A well considered response from a woman, with independent thinking. I’d like to have someone worthwhile to disagree with.

That’s how we learn things.

And yes, I do stand by the proposition that a man would be excoriated if he were to propose the same things this ‘writer’ has. But above and beyond this, I believe this woman’s line of reasoning to be barbaric and uncivilized. We do not make society better by acting poorly.

Of course, I’m one of those throwbacks who actually believes in ‘civilization,’ meaning that I think there are some cultures that are more ‘civilized,’ and hence better than others. I also think that a person has an obligation to act towards the betterment of one’s civilization if one is to enjoy the benefits of that civilization. This is a moral tenet. Does anyone agree or disagree with me, and if so, why?

Arlette
wrote on October 1 2008 @ 09:44 am: [report]

>What I’m really trying to do is start a conversation about ethics

By baiting people in the comment section of a totally fluffy breakup article?

Way to choose a forum.

Lady T
wrote on October 1 2008 @ 03:17 pm: [report]

Really all I was saying is if we feel the need to take a little harmless revenge to feel a little better (egging and vandalism aside), then let us do that with out calling us crazy.

You have your fun we have ours…I am not saying two wrong make a right, but if you are going to misbehave so can we.

Just to clarify- I think spite is the worst quality in people, but in the past few months I have seen so many of my girlfreind being hurt, broken engagements, cheating husbands…that sometimes you do something in the heat of the moment and in that second if feels good.  The next day is a different story especially if he finds out it was you…then you are just the crazy ex.

nemesis
wrote on October 2 2008 @ 07:10 pm: [report]

Arlette:

You’re right. Think I’ll go play with some grown ups.

Will R
wrote on November 10 2008 @ 05:08 am: [report]

For Nemesis so he won’t feel left out.

5 Ways to seek digital revenge on an EX Female REMIX!!!!
(and yes, you’d be just as evil to do the following as you would by following the advice in this satirical article, but Nem wanted it.  MOAR JAILS!)

1) After she changes the name of your Itunes, take all those special photos, videos, and racy emails.  Upload to Limewire, youtube, and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

2) As revenge for the voicemail issue, call the utilities for your shared apartment, and cancel them.  Especially water, and electricity.

3)While she’s selling your posessions on E-Bay, sign her up for online dating services and of course the craigslist “casual encounters section.”  Use as much real life information as possible, including home phone, and address.

4)When she’s playing with your phone, play with hers! Text message her BFF with a catty comment about her, then immediately text again with “SORRY THAT WASN’T MEANT TO GO TO YOU!” Continue down entire contact list.

5) While she’s sending you silly E-Cards, send her one from inspot and notify her that you just found out you have an STD.  Play this 100% serious and fake doctors records if possible.  She must now tell her new boyfriend, along with everyone she’s been with since that they need to get tested. If you know any of them, follow up in a week or so to make sure she’s done this.

(There, Nem, ya happy?!?!)

323Felicity
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 07:05 pm: [report]

geez…none of these things in the article (except selling the man’s stuff) is that bad…they are just sort of childish pranks. will r’s list was pretty mean…i think everyone is making a big deal out of something that’s supposed to be a joke.