I had to Google “doxing”, and imagine my chagrin when it had nothing to do with Weiner Dogs.
And speaking of public shaming, that filthy bastard Ted threw up a half-digested field rat in the back of my Jeep the other day! :mad:
I think one consequence that the abandonment of Christianity has led to is that concepts such as forgiveness, mercy, and repentance have been left by the wayside.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
You say this with such self-righteousness! Bravo. But I notice you were of a different mind when you posted this in the prankster parent thread:
You didn’t seem to care about being in a “mob” then. You didn’t spare the parents’ feelings one bit. You didn’t allow for any “due process”. You weren’t afraid that your words would push someone to violence. There is no post from you expressing disappointment that the parents have now lost their income stream due to the fall-out. You could have chosen not to participate in that thread, but no, you chose to join in and throw verbal stones. And now you’re posting in this thread, shaming the shamers from an unearned moral high ground. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so inconsistent, Velocity.
Again with this stupid moral relativism!? There is a difference between gay marriage and harrassing someone. I think even the most die-hard homophobe can see the difference.
It is wrong to fire someone just because they are gay. Because being gay does not HARM anyone.
It is not wrong to fire someone who does harmful things. Even if the harm they cause is invisible, in the form of offended feelings, it is still harm.
Your argument boils down to this: We shouldn’t say a bad word about anyone in the public eye, because if we do this, then it might affect that person’s employment. And how would we like to lose our job?
The answer is, I WOULD HATE TO LOSE MY JOB. And that’s why I don’t plan on doing bad things in the public eye anytime soon. And if someone were to frame me doing something bad that I didn’t do, I’d use my 15 minutes of infamy to defend myself and hope that enough people believed me so that the whole thing would deescalate. But if I actually did something bad, I’d APOLOGIZE. A tearful apology is all that is needed to break the wrathful gaze of the public eye. Hell, the president of the US shows that you can be obviously insincere and still be given a “pussy grabbing pass”.
No one has named a single person whose life has been ruined because of a viral video. Temporally challenged, yes. But permanent ruin? I need some cites before I believe this is a realistic fear.
Society “should” work in all kinds of ways it doesn’t. In an ideal society, a trip to the grocery story would be a completely boring affair unmarred by harrassment about one’s ethnicity or religion. Public shaming exists because society falls short of how it should be.
What part of the internet amplifying outrage to the point that a minor incident in a saner era would be ignored now can summon an insane mob of the professionally outraged to ruin someone’s life aren’t you getting? The OP specifically wished for such an outcome. What’s up with goal post shifting?
This isn’t gee, speech is being met with speech debate. This is people being rightfully worried and disgusted that social media, YouTube, etc can be used to take an incident and whip up a lynch mob.
I’m not saying if Monstro was there that she shouldn’t have said something. I’m saying we shouldn’t empower rabid, hysterical or professional mobs to ruin people’s lives.
@monstro: I think you’ve misread - I am not shaming or lecturing people - I’m just pointing out that it goes both ways. The same harness-the-Internet-masses-to-go-after-a-person power can be used for Gamergate-style harassment just as much as it can be used to shame a racist/bigot/sexist. Many people say, “Yay Internet!” when it comes to the latter but overlook that it’s the same power at use in the former.
And who decides what society should be like? You?
What the OP wished for is irrelevant - it’s actions, not wishes, that actually affect things in this world. It sounds like you’re worried about great masses of people… Okay, so what? Are you saying because these masses exist, we should stay silent if we witness bad behavior? If not, then how should I or anyone else change our behavior? What exactly are you saying that I should do differently?
We know this already. It’s been pointed out many times. It’s irrelevant.
It is totally relevant - unless you are going to cheer when someone you disagree with is harassed, but not when someone you agree with is harassed.
Who has cheered harassment?
As for public criticism, it’s a tool like any other, and can be used for good or evil. I cheer when rapists are punched, but not when babies are punched. Punching can be used for good or for evil.
Or you could piss off someone because they are stupid and unable to understand a joke and end up losing your position and having your reputation destroyed. That happened to a guy named Tim Hunt because a woman named Connie St. Louis a) doesn’t have a sense of humor and b) misquoted Hunt on Twitter.
Hunt was asked to give, with no prior warning, a speech at a science journalism conference. Hunt, during his off the cuff speech made a joke about being a ‘chauvinist monster’. The full text of the bit that caused the outrage:
In a recording of the speech, the audience can be heard laughing after the statement.
A woman named Connie St. Louis decided that Hunt was evil and tweetedout her recollection of what Hunt said. It turns out her recollection was incomplete. Instead of mentioning the bolded part, she just decided it wasn’t important and left it off and acted as though Hunt was serious about seperate labs.
Twitter outrage ensued. Hunt ended up resigning from his position at University College London, the Royal Society’s Biological Sciences Awards Committee and the European Research Council. Hunt was also accused of being all sorts of evil things.
A short while later a transcript of the speech and a recording turned up that verified Hunts version of events, that he made a joke.
The fact that the audience knew Hunt was jokingdidn’t matter.
The fact that Hunt was well-known for treating female scientists and female students well didn’t matter.
All that mattered was that one person, St. Louis (who, incidentally, got in trouble a short while later for falsifyingher C.V.) tweeted that Hunt was sexist.
Oh, Tim Hunt won a Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2001.
But fuck’em, amiright? I mean, Hunts employers decided Hunt wasn’t employable after this even though the reported story was wrong. The mob, which you appear to want to empower even more, decided the guy had to go. So burn it down, destroy all the good the man did because he made a bad joke.
Slee
It is something that doesn’t need to be pointed out, though.
Law enforcement officers can trump up charges against you and get you thrown in the slammer for the rest of your life. It can also do the same thing for actual hardened criminals. But I think both of us agree that we still need the police and prisons for this to be a safe, civil society.
My point is that even though internet shaming can have its own excesses (though no one has presented real life examples of these excesses), that doesn’t mean it can never be useful.
How do I want to “empower the mob” more? Public criticism can be used well and used badly. I’m for it being used for good and against it being used for evil. I’m for science being used for good (curing cancer) and against science being used for evil (developing biological weapons). That science can help accomplish evil goals doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do science.
That’s some pedantic nitpicking.
You know, I wasn’t the one who talked about how society “should” be. Maybe you should direct that question to HMS Irruncible.
But since you’ve asked…my vision of society is no doubt very different than yours. But I’ve got a solution for you. If you don’t think people should be internet shamed, you are perfectly entitled to shame those who “internet shame”. If getting someone fired is as easy as complaining to someone’s employer, then you can get internet shamers fired from their jobs, right? Surely employers will be moved by your impassioned plea and listen to you, and the internet shamers will learn their lessons.
I don’t want to live in a society where people are afraid to be out in public because might be yelled at for having a certain skin color or religious affiliation. People operate suboptimally when they have to deal with that kind of shit. So I’m generally supportive of people doing whatever they want to do to stamp out the most flagrant offenders, short of breaking criminal or civil laws. That includes everything from tongue-clucking all the way to launching a Facebook campaign.
What is your vision for a society? Is it is one where only some people get to speak their minds and others must be quiet, because otherwise that means someone might will lose their job? That sounds like a nightmare society to me. I don’t want my freedoms held hostage just so we can brag about having full employment.
How? I’m asking what you’re actually saying that I should do differently. So far I have no idea.
Your OP asked the question if internet shaming is a good way to combat racism and bigotry. I answer that no, it’s mob justice, and mob justice is wrong whether it’s Gamergate, Harambe, the guy who turned out not to be the Boston Marathon Bomber, or some ignorant racist spouting off. Whatever the target, it’s likely the judgment will be wrong, the punishment disproportionate, and the target of wrath will absolutely not under any circumstances change their mind.
Let’s make no mistake, the woman in your OP strikes me as someone I’d very much enjoy punching in the face. That’s emotion talking. I recognize that individuals shouldn’t do that, and neither should mobs.
Why is it “mob justice” as opposed to simply “a bunch of people condeming a person and/or behavior on publicly accessible webpages”? This, in effect, is all internet shaming is. It can lead to harrassment and more but it doesn’t have to.
When the Orlando shooter killed up the club, the internet teemed with angry opinions about him. When Trump bragged about grabbing pussy, there was online outrage for days. A teenager committed suicide and blamed his boss at the Dairy Queen for bullying him, who then became the subject of Joe Schmoe commentary too.
All of these represent some form of “internet shaming”. It’s what you’re going to get when human beings have unlimited access to information and can talk to each other about it. There is no way to stop this unless you’re saying the only protected speech is the offensive kind.
Using social media for the purpose of shaming has such uncertain outcomes that it is like firing a gun into the air in the middle of town. Maybe your intent was just to attract attention, but if the bullet chances to hit someone, that doesn’t make hir less wounded and you’re responsible. Among shooters, we say that you are responsible for where every bullet lands. You’re our shining beacon of anti-racism here, so we know you’d NEVER post to social media with the intention of stirring up a mob of cranks, randos, and trolls to ruin somebody’s life for speech you don’t like. We just know you don’t care if that does happen. You said so in this thread. You’re advocating firing guns into the air and disavowing responsibility for where the bullets land, metaphorically speaking.
I think a society where everyone lives in fear of offending a group of self righteous sjws who destroy people as a hobby in order to rebuild society in their own image is far more disturbing.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk