Is internet shaming a good way to combat racism and bigotry?

[DSeid]

Is there any reason to believe that fairly randomly choosing one offensively speaking/acting person a week (of the many hundreds of thousands of individuals saying things offensive, many worse, and doing offensive things, many worse) to serve as the sacrifice on the alter of the righteous internet’s mob attack, demanding (and often achieving) the loss of job, and more, serves as a much better deterrent than does the death penalty for murder?

And let’s be clear, the purpose of the mob action is not “to shame” or “public criticism” … it is to punish. And mob justice is never based on a fair trial. Its verdicts are sometimes correct but sometimes wrong. Its verdicts and sentences however never open to appeal. Its severity limited only by when the members of the mob are no longer entertained by the attack … fortunately for victims a mob has a poor attention span and can go to the next shiny thing quickly.

The biggest advantages of being part of the mob? You risk nothing, it costs you nothing. And it also allows you the same psychological safety as the person in a firing squad who does not know if their gun has bullets or blanks. Serious harm happens? Not your fault. You’re just one of the mob, innocently saying what harms you hope will happen, what you think should happen. No responsibility over what actually does happen by your sharing the point and condemn as widely as you can. For you it is all FUN FUN FUN! And feeling oh so righteous.
Is it ever appropriate? Yes. The venue of the offense once again matters to determining the level of the response. And the relative power of the person who has been offender over the victim of the offense comes into play.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@you_with_the_face

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.

You know there’s more to it than “commentary”. Every flavor of harassment and death threats can proceed from this.

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.

I don’t care if “it’s what you’re going to get” and it’s no excuse to say it’s unstoppable. That doesn’t make it right.

In the pre-internet days, if you did something awful, you got tarred and feathered and run out of town. At least with that, you had an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and start over in the next town. On the internet there is no next town and there are no do-overs.

[monstro]

@HMS_Irruncible

You know there’s more to it than “commentary”. Every flavor of harassment and death threats can proceed from this.
I don’t care if “it’s what you’re going to get” and it’s no excuse to say it’s unstoppable. That doesn’t make it right.

What isn’t right?

Is tongue-clucking “not right”?

Is telling your friend about the harrassment you got at the grocery story “not right”?

Is recording a harasser’s harrassment “not right”?

Is showing that recording to your Facebook friends “not right”?

Where, in your opinion, does the injustice begin?

And who is the perpetrator of the injustice? Am I a lynch mobber for sharing with everyone the article in the OP? Is anyone who utters a harsh word against that woman on a public message board a lynch mobber? You criticitized her as well–so does that mean you’ve joined the lynch mob?

In the pre-internet days, if you did something awful, you got tarred and feathered and run out of town. At least with that, you had an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and start over in the next town. On the internet there is no next town and there are no do-overs.

Can you find a single example of someone whose life has been forever ruined because they were unfairly “internet shamed”? I’ve made this request repeatedly and no one has produced compelling results. Seems to me if this is such a rampant occurrence, some examples should be easily forthcoming.

And by the way, people are still being “run out of town”, with or without the internet. There’s a wonderful documentary about the televangelist Ted Haggard that shows how powerful old fashion shamin’ still is. Give me a internet shamefest any day over that.

Shaming is never going away, and I can’t say that this bothers me. As long as people commit acts of crime and douchebaggery, people will respond in a shaming manner. So I think it’s naive and unproductive to shame shaming. If shaming isn’t effective, then you going tsk-tsk-tsk at the mob mentality isn’t going to stop anyone from doing it. Instead, I think it is more useful to establish some best practices in public shaming, so as to minimize the problems that people here seem to be so worried about. Like, perhaps news organizations need to develop guidelines when it comes to airing viral videos of a shameful nature (like obscuring faces). They probably shouldn’t air a viral video unless they’ve verified it. And of course they should give the other side the chance to defend themselves. I’m sure there are other institutional practices that could be adopted to keep shamers in check.

But the need and desire for people to congregate and discuss what’s going on in their world and community should be respected no matter what, even if all they want is to criticize a single person. A thread to talk about what a jackass Trader Joe’s Lady is isn’t a threat to anyone’s society. It’s not a mob; it’s friends getting together to talk about someone who has pissed them off vicariously. Just because these friends are on the internet doesn’t change anything. I have an infinite number of rolly-eyes for the person who thinks me expressing my negative opinions about Trader Joe’s Lady in an internet forum somehow means that I’m a throwback of the tar-and-feather days. I know that’s not what you said explicitly. But since this thread would classify as “internet shaming”, that’s the implication I take from your words.

A person can be a big fan of the collective eye-roll and also want everyone, even fucktards, to have a chance to redeem themselves. I don’t know of a single instance of internet shaming that has robbed someone of redemption.

[octopus]

@monstro

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.

Yours is a dystopic vision. Mine is not. Furthermore, if I would do as you suggest I’d obviously be a hypocrite.

You specifically wished for a particular outcome. That doesn’t signal anything good if you ask me.

@iiandyiiii

How? I’m asking what you’re actually saying that I should do differently. So far I have no idea.

What are you doing now? You aren’t doing anything other than commenting on a message board with a small audience. That seems harmless enough. If you were organizing a boycott of her place of business to get her fired or harassing her friends I’d think you were unnecessarily cruel.

[octopus]

@HMS_Irruncible

You know there’s more to it than “commentary”. Every flavor of harassment and death threats can proceed from this.
I don’t care if “it’s what you’re going to get” and it’s no excuse to say it’s unstoppable. That doesn’t make it right.

In the pre-internet days, if you did something awful, you got tarred and feathered and run out of town. At least with that, you had an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and start over in the next town. On the internet there is no next town and there are no do-overs.

Exactly. And the internet can be eternal. Not just global in reach. It’s really sinister.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@erysichthon

However, I find the phenomenon of internet shaming terrifying. The idea that you can destroy your life with a single thoughtless remark is nightmarish. It’s not likely to happen to me, as I don’t use social media and I’m not given to public rants, but I’ve said plenty of stupid things in my life—things I regretted as soon as they were out of my mouth.

I agree with this.

Internet shaming hordes might not quite be the Thought Police from 1984 but they are acting as Speech (or Behavior) Police and they aren’t even qualified to be wearing the badge. If mass internet shaming was somehow only served up by “well-trained professionals”–clever, intelligent, and well-reasoned writers–instead of any anonymous knuckle-dragger with a smartphone then maybe it’d be more effective at reducing incivility instead of being largely destructive.

But of course that’s not the way it works so what we’re left with is the present-day equivalent to mobs carrying pitchforks and torches. Instead of being burnt alive or forked to death you may “only” have your career and/or your life ruined (of course you could actually be killed, or driven to suicide, too).

[Leaper]

Question I just thought of in regards to people getting fired: how do you know that’s the intent of the “shamers”? Yeah, there are those who’ll post the person’s name and occupation, or link to their Facebook page, but most of the time, these videos are just posted with the intent of expressing “wow, can you believe how this person is acting?” and a snicker or two. If it goes viral enough, and the employer decides that the person isn’t worth the negative publicity of just being associated with them, is that the fault of the sharers? If you think a person’s public words and actions deserve some kind of larger privacy, that’s noble, but probably impossible.

[iiandyiiii]

@Scumpup

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.

So it’s just social media? Okay. What about informing the local paper or news station? Under what circumstances, in your mind, are witnesses of bad behavior obligated to keep quiet about what they see?

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

Yours is a dystopic vision. Mine is not. Furthermore, if I would do as you suggest I’d obviously be a hypocrite.

You specifically wished for a particular outcome. That doesn’t signal anything good if you ask me.

What are you doing now? You aren’t doing anything other than commenting on a message board with a small audience. That seems harmless enough. If you were organizing a boycott of her place of business to get her fired or harassing her friends I’d think you were unnecessarily cruel.

How about I just tell my friends about something I witnessed? Or the local news? Does it change things of I recorded it? Under what circumstances am I obligated to be quiet about something I saw?

[DSeid]

@Leaper

Question I just thought of in regards to people getting fired: how do you know that’s the intent of the “shamers”? …

We need to only look to the op to see an archetype of the thought process:

… I hope she gets fired from her job. I hope her friends ghost her. …

To my read “most of the time” these videos are posted with such expressions of the bad things, some clearly fantastical some not, that people want to see happen to the person.

This goes beyond mere “recreational outrage” or even egging someone’s house. The mentality is mass cyberbullying. The fact that the victim may in fact have done a very jerky thing does not in fact justify it.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@monstro

Shaming is never going away, and I can’t say that this bothers me.

Clearly I’m not going to convince you whether this behavior is OK, but back to the OP… is this a good way to combat racism and bigotry? Is it going to cause the target to act or think differently? Are people more likely or less likely to be racists from observing someone else lose their job?

I continue to believe it’s not an effective tactic, for the reasons I mentioned before. Once someone becomes the target of a witch hunt, they and like-minded thinkers will only strengthen their beliefs in that regard. If anything, they re-code their speech to avoid the reach of so-called political correctness until the general public catches up to the new terminology.

If this is so effective at combatting bigotry, why do we seem to see more high-profile racism than we have in 60 years? All the naming and shaming certainly doesn’t seem to be driving them into the shadows, cowering in penitence. In fact in some quarters, being called a racist by a liberal is regarded a badge of achievement. So I wouldn’t say it’s exactly working.

[iiandyiiii]

@HMS_Irruncible

Clearly I’m not going to convince you whether this behavior is OK, but back to the OP… is this a good way to combat racism and bigotry? Is it going to cause the target to act or think differently? Are people more likely or less likely to be racists from observing someone else lose their job?

I continue to believe it’s not an effective tactic, for the reasons I mentioned before. Once someone becomes the target of a witch hunt, they and like-minded thinkers will only strengthen their beliefs in that regard. If anything, they re-code their speech to avoid the reach of so-called political correctness until the general public catches up to the new terminology.

If this is so effective at combatting bigotry, why do we seem to see more high-profile racism than we have in 60 years? All the naming and shaming certainly doesn’t seem to be driving them into the shadows, cowering in penitence. In fact in some quarters, being called a racist by a liberal is regarded a badge of achievement. So I wouldn’t say it’s exactly working.

Publicly calling out something worked very well with Matt Taylor, the ESA scientist involved in the Rosetta mission – he gave a sincere apology, and his critics praised him for it. So clearly it can help educate even the targets of the criticism. That doesn’t mean it will always change the minds of the target of the criticism, but it seems to me that more discussion and more visibility is always a positive thing, even when some people will take advantage of situations like this to be assholes.

As for whether we see more “high profile racism” (whatever that is) now than in the past, I’m highly skeptical – perhaps from the point of view of white people, this is so, but based on the older black people I’ve spoken to and heard from (or read writings by), they experience far, far less racism today than in the past. These things (racist rants in public and the like) would have been much more likely to be greeted with tolerance, a shrug of the shoulders, and even agreement in the past than now, and thus less likely to rile anyone up.

[monstro]

@HMS_Irruncible

Clearly I’m not going to convince you whether this behavior is OK, but back to the OP… is this a good way to combat racism and bigotry? Is it going to cause the target to act or think differently? Are people more likely or less likely to be racists from observing someone else lose their job?

I continue to believe it’s not an effective tactic, for the reasons I mentioned before. Once someone becomes the target of a witch hunt, they and like-minded thinkers will only strengthen their beliefs in that regard. If anything, they re-code their speech to avoid the reach of so-called political correctness until the general public catches up to the new terminology.

I know this seems like a big bad racist place, but it’s not nearly as overtly racist as it used to be. I can count on one hand all the times I’ve been called a “nigger” while out in public. My parents cannot say the same. Since saying “nigger” is still legal, I’ve got to think that shaming has had a lot to do with this shift. It is strange to hear so many people be so skeptical about this.

Go out right now to a busy street and call someone a “nigger”. Instantly, you will be met with scornful looks and words. Are you really saying that this is a bad thing? That we should resist our urge to express negative emotions in response to negative behavior, lest we become like our stone-throwing ancestors? Don’t you think this is a tad bit overwrought?

If this is so effective at combatting bigotry, why do we seem to see more high-profile racism than we have in 60 years?

I don’t know what you mean by “high profile racism”. But that’s a mighty hard claim to swallow. Sixty years ago, black people were being murdered and beaten just for wanting to exercise their right to vote. Sixty years ago, mobs of whites would greet little black kids on their way to school and yell “NIGGER GO HOME!!” in their faces. Racism is still present in our society. But it’s not worse now than any other time.

(I think racists have been emboldened by our current president–who is the epitome of someone who is “unshame-able.”)

All the naming and shaming certainly doesn’t seem to be driving them into the shadows, cowering in penitence. In fact in some quarters, being called a racist by a liberal is regarded a badge of achievement. So I wouldn’t say it’s exactly working.

This is a claim I’d like to see backed with evidence. Because a lot of things “seem” to be the case, but that doesn’t mean they are. For one thing, if what you say is true and racism like the type espoused by the Trader Joe’s lady is so commonplace, the video would NOT have been viral. It wouldn’t have been shocking. It would have registered a giant “meh” in all of us. Her behavior is so shameful BECAUSE it’s a relatively uncommon event.

Even if shaming isn’t effective at stopping behavior, are you really advocating that people not talk about that behavior amongst themselves in the public arena? Because that sounds like what you’re saying.

[Scumpup]

@iiandyiiii

How about I just tell my friends about something I witnessed? Or the local news? Does it change things of I recorded it? Under what circumstances am I obligated to be quiet about something I saw?

Kind of like the scene from the Simpsons where Bart says he is just swinging here and anyone who gets in his way will get hit and Lisa is just kicking here and anyone who gets in her way will get kicked.

[iiandyiiii]

@Scumpup

Kind of like the scene from the Simpsons where Bart says he is just swinging here and anyone who gets in his way will get hit and Lisa is just kicking here and anyone who gets in her way will get kicked.

Huh? No idea how this answers my questions. Here they are again: If I see someone behave very poorly, can I tell my friends about it? How about the local news? Does it change things if I recorded it? Under what circumstances am I obligated to be quiet about something I saw? Under what circumstances can I tell others, and who can I tell?

I’m interested in the actual behavior you think I should change. If you can’t give me any pointers, then how am I supposed to learn what you think I should do?

[madmonk28]

@monstro

…Can you find a single example of someone whose life has been forever ruined because they were unfairly “internet shamed”? I’ve made this request repeatedly and no one has produced compelling results. Seems to me if this is such a rampant occurrence, some examples should be easily forthcoming…

Here you go:

Stone was a health charity worker who had a long-running private joke with a friend. They would photograph themselves standing next to signs, doing the opposite of what the signs said. She wasn’t really trying to be disrespectful of the war dead. They posted the pics on each other’s Facebook’s walls. The Arlington photo wasn’t meant to be seen by everyone — Stone didn’t even know how to adjust her privacy settings properly.

That didn’t matter. Many who saw the photo took it literally. She lost her job. She got death threats. She found it hard to leave the house or have a social life. She couldn’t get a new job because every time an employer googled her name, the photo came up. Her entire life had been reduced to a misinterpretation of a private joke between friends.

This woman's life was destroyed after she posted one dumb photo on Facebook

[you_with_the_face]

@iiandyiiii

Huh? No idea how this answers my questions. Here they are again: If I see someone behave very poorly, can I tell my friends about it? How about the local news? Does it change things if I recorded it? Under what circumstances am I obligated to be quiet about something I saw? Under what circumstances can I tell others, and who can I tell?

You questions will go unanswered because the posters you’re debating are using undefined terms like “mob justice” as if it’s obvious what that means in the context of disorganized internet chatter.

“Internet shaming is wrong because its mob justice, and mob justice ruins people’s lives unfairly.”

I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about “FHITP” guy and whether him losing his job is an example of unjust internet shaming.

[you_with_the_face]

@HMS_Irruncible

You know there’s more to it than “commentary”. Every flavor of harassment and death threats can proceed from this.

Harassment and death threats can proceed from any publicly witnessed event.

I think we can all agree that once you start stalking and threatening physical harm to someone, that crosses the line into socially unacceptable behavior that is shame-worthy all on its own. In fact, it’s criminal; we don’t need to say anything more than that.

But “internet shaming” as set out in the OP is nothing more than people expressing offense about something a person did. The article about the Trader Joe lady presents commentary about her behavior. If you can’t tell me whether this article is an example of the “mob justice” you’re concerned about, then you’re not helping us understand your position. Then I have to conclude that your position is too nebulous to treat seriously.

The SDMB has codified “internet shaming” by having The Pit. No only do we pit each other, but we pit people that offend us. All the time. Is this a problem now? Or is it only “mob justice” if we’re talking about Facebook and Twitter.

[Shodan]

It doesn’t really matter if Internet shaming is effective or not - it’s too much fun to give up. It’s safe, it’s low-cost, it’s a cheap way to make yourself feel morally superior, all from the comforts of your own home.

Not that I’ve ever done it, of course.

Regards,
Shodan

[HMS_Irruncible]

@you_with_the_face

But “internet shaming” as set out in the OP is nothing more than people expressing offense about something a person did.

Okay, first of all, the OP asked this question:

@monstro

Do you think spreading videos like this around one does anything to deter ignorance and bigotry? Or does it just inflame tensions?

I answer “No it doesn’t deter, and yes it does inflame tensions.”

The article about the Trader Joe lady presents commentary about her behavior. If you can’t tell me whether this article is an example of the “mob justice” you’re concerned about, then you’re not helping us understand your position. Then I have to conclude that your position is too nebulous to treat seriously.

Like everyone else here, I loathe the woman in the clip, but at the end of the day all she’s an unimportant rando committing a thought crime. And then a news outlet presents it in Onion-worthy format… “local racist woman says some racist things, and people are sharing it.”

The SDMB has codified “internet shaming” by having The Pit. No only do we pit each other, but we pit people that offend us. All the time. Is this a problem now? Or is it only “mob justice” if we’re talking about Facebook and Twitter.

Sorry pit-lovers, but the SDMB BBQ pit is absolutely inconsequential when it comes to shaming. The audience is scrawny, the reach is trivial. Show me an SDMB post that’s ever been shared a million times on Twitter. Or heck, a hundred times. And then I’ll be asking whether it’s shame-related.

ETA: Tangential, but if anyone ever does pit me, kindly send a PM so I can notice and give a damn.