The “shitty people on Facebook” is the official TMZ Facebook account which published the original article with the “Hardwick denies …” headline.
Why did you link to the Facebook page, if not because of the comments? You’d already linked to the article. The comments were full of misogynists canceling Dykstra.
Someone asked for egregious examples, I think Justine Sacco would qualify. She was a highly progressive young woman working in the nonprofit sector, traveling to Africa, and made an ill-conceived post intending to satirize racist views about Africa: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Don’t worry, I’m white.”
She made the post before jumping on the plane and by the time she got off the plane, her life as she knew it was over. People were calling not only for her job but for her to be raped repeatedly until she got AIDS and to have her uterus cut out of her body, among other things.
Ironically I learned about her in a Nerdist interview where Chris Hardwick had Jon Ronson on to speak about his book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. Haven’t read the book but I imagine there are many such examples.
Several years after the incident she was still struggling with suicidal ideation.
I didn’t even look at the comments.
First, you should. Second, if not for the comments, what on earth was the point of that link, different from your previous one?
Because the TMZ post rephrased the headline in the way I had earlier said was equivalent, basically suggesting that according to Hardwick, Dysktra was lying.
JFC! Do you really not see how “she is lying” is different than “that guy says she is lying”?
Oh, good grief.
Look at these two headlines:
Dykstra is lying
Hardwick Says Dykstra is Lying
Are they the same?
edit: ninjaed!
Good book.
I would read it, but as someone who struggles a lot with social anxiety, probably not a great idea for me to read about the most egregious cases of social ostracism.
Another great example, thank you, and I appreciate your input here. Social media is vicious, unrelenting, and utterly unforgiving. Ruin a person’s career? Ruin their life? Drive them to suicide? Hey, that’s a feature, not a bug!
Not an exaggeration:
No. The first one is a headline that no respectable newspaper would ever print, unless the evidence of lying was absolutely unequivocal. What they might print is a headline and story suggesting reason to doubt the person’s veracity.
Remember this all originated in my expression of doubt that Dykstra was being completely forthright, that there were two sides to the story and that she was likely engaged in exaggeration and omitting important context. The media abounded in such speculation. Whether it harmed her or not is debatable and hard to determine but I never saw any evidence that it did.
But her essay, basically accusing Hardwick of all manner of sexual abuses, certainly harmed him, and was never substantiated. That’s why I’m inclined to Hardwick’s side, not because I happen to be male. Other alleged abusers of women have not only been accused, but have been charged and convicted based on solid evidence in a proper legal venue. They can rot in hell as far as I’m concerned.
Which–correct me if I’m wrong, @Miller–was kind of the point behind the question. What you were saying earlier in the thread was not something respectable. It was assuming bad faith instead of offering evidence of bad faith. It was cancel culture behavior.
Only that, in a more recent interview, Justine Sacco reached for the FOX news defense.
Essentially, that ‘no reasonable person should believe the insane thing I posted’. Problem is, that excuse is how we get into the current state of the right wing weaponizing their cancellations.
One more note, she quickly got job offers… from guys that did agree with what she posted…
To her credit, she refused those offers.** Overall I don’t agree 100 with her punishment, but being the director of corporate communications is not a job that would recommend doing what she did. And she got a job in a related field later.
** This does point to what is different with the cancellations from what one sees, the right wing has ways to prop up the ones that “follow” their agenda, cancellation is not really a big deal thanks to the oportunities the right gives to them..
People with this kind of bias are usually entirely unaware of it.
Your assertions about Dysktra’s honesty and motives were entirely based on your own personal feelings, not any facts.
Hey if you want to make racist jokes on a social media platform in order to get attention, don’t be surprised when you get attention.
People have been sharing this article (The Politics of Humiliation) on BlueSky, which is written from a leftish perspective and feels relevant to this conversation.
I mean, you almost never can substantiate claims like that. That’s an inherent tension with almost any claim of sexual abuse. After all that I explained about Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners, the truth is there’s rarely physical trauma after a sexual assault. And that’s only evidence that can be collected within 72 hours of an incident, with a special instrument. And because of social and cultural attitudes, internalized shame and self-blame, it often takes years for women to even come to terms with the fact that they were sexually assaulted much less even think about discussing or reporting it.
So singling her out like that is odd. The vast majority of women who talk about their experiences are talking about unsubstantiated claims. That is the nature of sexual violence.
What would you count as evidence in this case? It’s not like anyone would have witnessed it.
That was my argument 
I don’t know if we would ever be able to find where it originated. I personally think that every group, right or left, can have a proclivity to do it.
It looks like I replied to an incorrect post earlier in this thread. I replied to your post instead of the one that k9bfriender made where you and I both agree was an excellent post. Sorry for that. That may have caused some confusion.
But anyway, part of the reason why Donald Trump is not only relevant in this thread, but why he is the focal point of this conversation is because he is leading by example.
But one thing I hadn’t considered until just now..
The fact that about 300 of the 365 people in my graduating class moved out of my hometown after graduation largely because something about them wasn’t accepted by the local status quo seems to be a form of cancel culture I hadn’t considered before.
This might be worthy of its own post.
Brene Brown has an excellent book called Atlas of the Heart that delves into a lot of these emotions like humiliation. I don’t think this author chooses the correct word.
Shame would be a better choice. By the dictionary definition, humiliation is a type of shame that specifically attacks someone’s character. Shame is a type of humiliation that specifically attacks someone’s behavior. Dictionaries are weird with their circular logic, but Brown rationalizes this by positing that when someone’s character is attacked, that person is usually going to feel anger, and that anger comes from disagreement. It’s essentially a defiance of authority, not acceptance of it.
But since shame is actually based on behavior, repeated shaming will eventually lead toa person thinking that their repeated bad behavior comes from being a bad person. That’s an acceptance of authority.
That’s my take, anyway. I felt that made the article confusing, but if you replace the word “humiliation” with “shame”, the article makes a lot more sense.
For the record, Trump also dehumanizes, but he’s careful to only dehumanize certain people. People who disagree with him are allegedly losers and weaklings, but immigrants are allegedly eating pets.
May I ask what “…FO time…” means? Forward Officer, maybe? Foreign Office?