Collection of (unpublished) letters to TODAY show how cruel the internet can be.

People who have been flamed made choices to get into this situation

from Lim Peh Kalikong

Logically, the argument that this writer did not get flamed and lampooned by choice does not stand up to scrutiny. In many situations — though not all — there are at least three levels of choice.

He chose to slut-shame and slam women whose lives he wasn’t sure about; he made a choice to not keep it to himself; and he made a choice to spread his opinion and shove it in the faces of those who can’t voice out their own.

All of us are free to make our own choices and should not be judged on those choices. But to appeal and say society is then obliged to help make life easier for this guy is something I really don’t want to do.

Flaming and doxxing for people who voice out their opinion a matter of deterrence

from SLRT (Feedback)

I agree with the writer of “People who have been flamed made choices to get into this situation” (Aug 1), and I wish to add a point.

Some people argue to be more lenient on the people who are just voicing out their opinion on the grounds of freedom of speech. While that is a logical point, people’s opinion have to be their responsibility.

For something to be a strong disincentive, it often must go beyond affecting the person himself. Nothing is more motivating than preventing harm from coming to the people one loves.

For example, being flamed and doxxed as a deterrent is not only unpleasant for some, but it may also lead to the loss of income, which may create hardship for the offender’s family.

In addition, the offender’s family and friends will often also be shamed by the person’s unpopular opinion and how hurtful it can be.

Sounding stupid is a better way to torture the people around you personally. Stupid people and trolls usually understand this principle.

In the case of freedom of speech, if we intend to deter people from spouting rubbish without understanding the whole situation, we must make good on the threat of flaming and doxxing, otherwise the deterrent will not work.

In conclusion, the matter is a balance between social justice and setting the right incentives.

These letters are a parody of “Unwed mums did make choices that led to their situation.” (Aug 1) and “Unequal benefits for single unwed mums a matter of deterrence” (Aug 3).

They are in no form genuine calls to harass the people involved. Say what you want about unpopular opinion, but don’t actually go and shame their families.

But still - ugh, straight Chinese men who think they know everything about how society should work.

(points to self)