What would be a reason for why the same explanation of stalking’s immorality doesn’t apply to cyber-stalking? It is in a way creating a parasocial relationship, and it seems that such a rights violation is still wrong even if the victim doesn’t know it’s happening or feel any fear or discomfort as a result.
I don't think the reply to (3) is convincing. Bomb threats are frequently fake and result in no violence, but they are still immoral and should be punished legally. Further, it need not be bodily violence - it could be the risk of property rights violations, for example. I think a better way of conceptualizing stalking is that it's an *implied* threat.
I do think "implied threat" and correlates-with-violence (maybe not physical violence always, but certainly major intrusion/nuisance that might set of the threat sensors twitching) is a big factor in most serious cases of stalking. Yet there's something viscerally different and yes, disgusting, about stalking or even stalky-adjacent behaviours that is not just about the (looming and vague) potential threat.
When I got to the conclusion of the post, it felt (and I realise "it felt" is not a particularly persuasive argument ;) really really right.
There's also an extra aspect to the "imposition of a relationship" element which is that it's (to use a term popular in a different ummm discourse) slightly at least gaslighty: it messes up with one's concept of reality, because unless the stalker is a completely out of the blue stranger, it's very easy to start doubting in the "what if I encouraged/led them on/do I have an obligation to somehow be kind to this clearly unwell and probably harmless* person" etc. The "am I going crazy here or what" effect is quite pronounced.
I'm saying all that as someone who never has been stalked but who have felt a stalking-adjacent feelings about people who presumed relationships or just really really wanted one.
*Harrmless in category sense (eg young women, far away geographically, on anonymous internet etc).
>>If Archie does not wrong Veronica by sending an unsolicited greeting card or gift, how does he wrong her by sending multiple cards and gifts?
Caveat: I have no idea who Archie and Veronica are.
There are many people who'd argue that sending an unsolicited card or gift to a person we are not in a "socially sanctioned card or gift giving relationship" already is not permissible, UNLESS perhaps done as part of a initiating-courtship or mayyybe initiating-friendship sequence, and then only permitted once (continuing past the initial no is a harassment).
I'd not go as far as "impermissible" morally, but certainly a sign of social incompetence from the person, always a potential "red flag".
I'll admit I only now learned that stalking is a crime, and I'm kind of horified by this fact. I guess my intuition on the matter is that, as a social transgression, it would be wrong to punish it with state (or interpersonal) violence, and we should instead employ social osracisation or other similar tools.
What would be a reason for why the same explanation of stalking’s immorality doesn’t apply to cyber-stalking? It is in a way creating a parasocial relationship, and it seems that such a rights violation is still wrong even if the victim doesn’t know it’s happening or feel any fear or discomfort as a result.
Good point. I guess my intuition is that it’s not *as* immoral, because online parasocial relationships are not *as* literally relationships.
I don't think the reply to (3) is convincing. Bomb threats are frequently fake and result in no violence, but they are still immoral and should be punished legally. Further, it need not be bodily violence - it could be the risk of property rights violations, for example. I think a better way of conceptualizing stalking is that it's an *implied* threat.
I do think "implied threat" and correlates-with-violence (maybe not physical violence always, but certainly major intrusion/nuisance that might set of the threat sensors twitching) is a big factor in most serious cases of stalking. Yet there's something viscerally different and yes, disgusting, about stalking or even stalky-adjacent behaviours that is not just about the (looming and vague) potential threat.
When I got to the conclusion of the post, it felt (and I realise "it felt" is not a particularly persuasive argument ;) really really right.
There's also an extra aspect to the "imposition of a relationship" element which is that it's (to use a term popular in a different ummm discourse) slightly at least gaslighty: it messes up with one's concept of reality, because unless the stalker is a completely out of the blue stranger, it's very easy to start doubting in the "what if I encouraged/led them on/do I have an obligation to somehow be kind to this clearly unwell and probably harmless* person" etc. The "am I going crazy here or what" effect is quite pronounced.
I'm saying all that as someone who never has been stalked but who have felt a stalking-adjacent feelings about people who presumed relationships or just really really wanted one.
*Harrmless in category sense (eg young women, far away geographically, on anonymous internet etc).
>>If Archie does not wrong Veronica by sending an unsolicited greeting card or gift, how does he wrong her by sending multiple cards and gifts?
Caveat: I have no idea who Archie and Veronica are.
There are many people who'd argue that sending an unsolicited card or gift to a person we are not in a "socially sanctioned card or gift giving relationship" already is not permissible, UNLESS perhaps done as part of a initiating-courtship or mayyybe initiating-friendship sequence, and then only permitted once (continuing past the initial no is a harassment).
I'd not go as far as "impermissible" morally, but certainly a sign of social incompetence from the person, always a potential "red flag".
I'll admit I only now learned that stalking is a crime, and I'm kind of horified by this fact. I guess my intuition on the matter is that, as a social transgression, it would be wrong to punish it with state (or interpersonal) violence, and we should instead employ social osracisation or other similar tools.