We’re all pretending to know what the hell a “bogan” and a “Bundy Rum Bear” are, right? It’s not just me?
Of course. And there are scenarios in which organized shame is the right tool. In my opinion that method is best employed against powerful entities or institutions that are immune to everything else and are engaged in real harmful action.
Here are some examples. The Catholic Church and the pedophile scandals. Excessive force and corruption in the police forces. Whale hunters.
Lol.
Okay, but my point is that most of these non-prominent-people incident probably started with pretty mundane acts of sharing, like I suggested – just someone being annoyed who happened to take a video, and then saying “look at this crap that I had to deal with today – screw these racist assholes!!”.
And, IMO, that’s something that is okay to do if one witnesses (and even records) bad behavior.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that.
I dunno. When someone expresses the idea that people shouldn’t be ALLOWED to go after information or that people shouldn’t tell their friends about their bullies or that it is wrong to ever wish that someone get their comeuppance, it is pretty dang hard not to see blanket condemnations. Only iiandyiiii has been kind enough to seriously weigh in on the hypotheticals I’ve presented. Do you really think you’d be bothered if someone lost their job because their boss saw them on the six o’clock news shouting racial slurs at little kids? What if they did this day after day and it was causing the kids serious mental distress? Can you at least agree with me this is shameful behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated in civil society? Because the way you’ve been arguing suggests that you think this type of free speech is so sacred that it would be wrong to ask the guy to stop. Either as an individual or a group of individuas. And if asking the guy to stop didn’t work, your arguments suggests you’d have a problem with escalating any further–like by informing the guy’s family and associates so that they may get him to stop. To my ear, you and others are advocating that people cripple themselves just to spare someone from losing their job. If this isn’t what you are advocating and I’m unfairly characterizing your position, I’d really like for you to provide an example of a situation where you would be in full support of someone rallying the community. So far, no examples have been forthcoming from your side. So why wouldn’t I think you guys are issuing a blanket condemnation?
Nothing I’ve said in this thread should make you think I wouldn’t agree with something so basic. But whatever.
If I was dealing with someone who was harrassing me on a regular basis for no reason at all and it was clear they were of sound mind and local law enforcement couldn’t do anything to help me, I wouldn’t hesitate to get the harrassment on video and use it to rally support. I might text it to some folks and email it to others. I might show it to people I work with. I might even post it on the SDMB if the offensiveness was extremely flagrant. I don’t consider this spreading something “as wide and as far as possible”. My intention wouldn’t be to bring ruin to the individual. No, my intention would be to make the individual leave me and others the hell alone. If someone in my social circle has different intentions, that’s on them. Just like a guy who says “kill the niggers” in the town square isn’t responsible for the people who take those words literally, I’m not responsible for the wackjob who decides to go vigilante on my behalf.
A lot of folks here keep talking about “unintended consequences”. Well, yeah. Internet shaming can lead to unintended consequences, but so can any free speech. Especially ugly opinions expressed out in public. Seems to me that by condemning internet shaming MORE than the behavior that elicits internet shaming, you are putting duct tape on some people’s mouths while giving bullhorns to others. I think everyone should get to speak through a bullhorn and everyone should be able to throw tomatoes. This is what freedom looks like, IMHO.
I think there are plenty of situations where the victim is totally innocent and the bully is clearly a jerk. I’m going to side with the victims and leave it up to law enforcement to care about the bully. In situations with no clear victim or bully, I am totally fine with witholding judgment all together. I guess I’m not the type of person who feels like I MUST pick a side, no matter what.
The old “you’re a bully for not being nice to a bully” argument again. This is nonsense. Bullying means something. Bullying is targeting an innocent for no good reason, so that the victim is intimidated, their peace of mind undermined. When you see video footage of me trying to make someone feel bad because of their skin color or religion, I hope you call me a bully because that’s what I would be in that situation. But I’m not a bully just because I’m not afraid to call someone out for being a jerk. I may not be a saint, but surely my desire to keep a bully in check puts me in a different light than the person who wants to hurt innocent people for no reason at all.
Who is “we”? I don’t know if “we” all heartily endorse anything.
You are backing the OP and the OP is all about using mobs on the internet to cause real life problems for real people based on perceived sins.
But you are relying on a mob to use rational judgement on whether some particular actions is good or evil. Guess what? The mob isn’t very good at that as mobs tend to be really fucking stupid.
There is a reason the term ‘witch hunt’ has been used in this thread.
Answer this: What happens when the mob is wrong? How is the injured party made whole?
There seems to be a big disconnect between one side, which I am on, that believes this type of behavior is dangerous and stupid and those who advocate for it. The disconnect seems to be on whether the behavior is justified at all vs. justified by the actions of the target.
I don’t think that mob justice (and make no mistake, that is exactly what this is) is a good solution, ever.
The other side, which you appear to be on, seems to think that mob justice is fine if the infraction is bad enough. Of course, as you note, that is a very slippery slope in that the definition of ‘bad enough’ can and does change so that innocent people get targeted. See Gamergate or Tim Hunt for an example.
Additionally, the research I cited shows that shame doesn’t really work.
So, all we end up with is a lot of people who weren’t involved in the original situation feeling all morally superior for attacking the ‘perpetrator’ online, the person/persons who were the target of the original incident not getting a damned thing and, last, the ‘perpetrator’ having serious damage done to their life. And for what? So that there is a very slim possibility that, in the future, some unknown individual may not be an ass in real life?
Slee
Not with that attitude, no.
If there’s interest in a genuine, civilised discussion without name-calling and insults, then I’m happy to go into it further (perhaps in a different thread). If it’s just going to be a reason for people to say “you suck” and insult me, I can just log into the voice chat of a major FPS for that.
Bogans are a bit like rednecks, but with their own unique Australian flavour.
Bundaberg Rum (AKA “Bundy”) is a popular Rum in Australia, and it has a polar bear as its mascot. The drink is, like Jim Beam and cheap vodka, associated with bogans - a number of whom have stickers of the Bundy Rum bear on their car.
Yes, I would. Fucking with people’s livelihoods has all sorts of long-term consequences not just for them, but for their family too - “Sorry, Timmy, you can’t have new shoes for school because Daddy lost his job because some self-righteous dickhead on the internet decided he didn’t like the words daddy used when he was frustrated at the supermarket one day.”
If they’ve been told to knock it off and kept doing it, that’s a totally different kettle of fish to filming someone as a “one-off” and then broadcasting it far and wide for the express purpose of getting that person in trouble.
That’s an entirely different situation to the sort of “shaming” we’re discussing in this thread, where someone makes an objectionable social media post or says something off-the-cuff in public that someone else finds offensive and then there’s an internet lynch mob out to get them.
In your situation, if you’ve tried multiple times to get the person to stop harassing you and they don’t, then the shaming tactic is probably justified.
Yes, he is - and so are you, IMO.
This doesn’t really respond to my actual points, but rather appears to be responding to what you’d like them to be.
To put it simply, I think it’s okay, if one sees bad behavior, or even records it, to share it with others in the community. I think it’s okay to say “this is a problem in our community, and here it is on video”.
Something similar to this is probably how most of the examples being discussed actually began. Yes, some people can go overboard, as is possible with any speech. I wouldn’t be in favor of organized campaigns to destroy people’s lives for any but the most extreme examples.
But if a business owner is being bigoted to customers, I have no problem with someone saying “I’m not going to shop here and I don’t think you should either”. Or it’s okay to say “I don’t want to go to a restaurant where the servers act like this”.
It’s okay to be critical of others.
To generalize greatly, “I have been on your side” in this thread. But I think monstro’s position is more nuanced than you suggest. I don’t see her explicitly saying she thinks idiot speakers deserve whatever negative things happen to them. I think, at this point in the thread anyway, she is acknowledging that idiot shaming can get out of control but at the same time (IMO) she wonders at what point does the shaming become inappropriate?
How much responsibility should she (or anyone) accept for the actions of others when she herself has the right (some might say the duty) to call somebody else out on their bad behavior? Does the possibility of internet shaming getting out of control mean that we all must shut our mouths to make sure that never happens or do we still have the right, or even the duty, to tell someone their behavior is not acceptable–even knowing that others may run with that ball and wreak havoc?
I think there is the question: does the fact that this idiot shaming can go over the top mean that one should never shame anyone in any way? Even when the consensus is they deserve to be told “your behavior is not ok!” ?
I never said it was not ok to be critical of others. Hell, I am criticizing you in this thread.
Well, actually your take on this issue but…
At the same time, you are moving the goal posts. ‘this is a problem in our community and this is an example on video’ is very different than ‘This person is evil and their life needs to be destroyed’.
Considering that the OP is about the second option and you are defending the practice of public shaming that leads directly to the second option, you are implicitly endorsing it.
I note that you seem to want to ignore the Tim Hunt situation. I have asked you directly what should be done about those situations. Since all I hear is crickets, I can only conclude that you either don’t want to admit that when someone is unfairly targeted there is no real way to make the damage whole or you consider Hunts situation an acceptable outcome.
This whole discussion reminds me of a guy named Eddie. I worked with Eddie and he is a loud and obnoxious kind of guy, though it works for him and people like him a lot.
One day at work Eddie went off about a contractor, called him a fag and used some other insults. He did this in front of me and some other people including g a coworker who happened to be gay. The next day I went to Eddie’s office and told Eddie that one of the people that heard his rant was gay. I didn’t identify the person but let him know it wasn’t cool.
Eddie said ‘No shit? Man, I am sorry.’ Eddie then tracked down each person who was there and apologized for using the slurs. The gay person happened to be a very good friend of mine, besides being a coworker. Eddie thought very highly of this person. When Eddie apologized, my friend told Eddie that he is gay. Eddie did his damnedest to make the situation whole because Eddie thinks the world of my friend.
I could have gone to H.R. My friend could have gone to H.R. Instead, Eddie learned a lesson and stopped using slurs like fag.
The outcome was the best one possible.
The internet outrage machine makes those kinds of outcomes very unlikely. Why? Because a person’s whole life is boiled down to one situation where there is no real way for the person to make it right. Even if the story is false or misleading, like what happened to Hunt. He got destroyed with no real recourse over a bad joke.
Slee
Q: Isn’t this a slippery slope that justifies stalking (something which there is no justification for)…?
Hi, monstro. I posted in this thread a while ago and was, rightfully, ignored, I suppose. But then I had another thought, based on the reactions you are getting in this thread and the responses you have to those reactions. My thought isn’t an insult, or what you might consider support, exactly, so maybe it is of no use to anybody. Nonetheless, here it is: How has this thread reinforced or nourished or detracted from or negated your original view? Because that’s what the internet does: one of several contradictory things. And what it does, it seems to me, is either one of the above, or nothing at all. Given this thread so far, have you figured out an answer to your question, or is your intent to pose a question the answers to which will provide you a platform for a different argument?
That’s a very good illustration of how internet shaming could mess up a guy who just said one stupid thing one day without thinking.
Even if you exaggerated your story (and I have no reason to think you did), hell, even if it’s just apocryphal, it’s a good example of how things could potentially spin out of control but didn’t.
I bet we all make mistakes and say stupid shit sometimes that we later wish hadn’t. Woe be unto us if the wrong person takes it the wrong way and injects it into the web-o-sphere.
WWJD? Something about forgiveness, I think.
Exactly. Sleestak’s story is an excellent example of how to handle this sort of thing, IMHO.
I dunno, maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall seeing those things expressed here. Can you please find the posts that did for me? I really do not recall anyone saying that it should somehow be illegal or otherwise not allowed for people look for information or that anyone should not tell friends about bullies. Looking through the pages I cannot find any examples myself.
Is there even one post that said that such behavior should not be ALLOWED or that people should not tell their friends about being bullied or that it wrong to ever wish for someone to get their comeuppance?
There has to be at least one even though I can’t find it or you would not have said it. Yeah … I’m going to assume that there is that post. Assuming that (and waiting for you to link to it) portraying that as the arguments made here is either serious miscomprehension on your part or your arguing in a less than honest manner.
No. Seriously I cannot.
I believe that “shameful behavior” must be tolerated in civil society. I take that position with those who define women breastfeeding in public as shameful, with those who consider men kissing as shameful, with those who consider someone with a penis using a women’s bathroom as shameful, and with those who use the same standards of shameful as I do.
Now how to handle “hate” behavior is different but even then the absolute statement of “should not be tolerated” goes too far. Should it be illegal? Is any possible action justifiable in the cause of not tolerating it? No.
Have even read anything I’ve written or are you just imagining some posts as complete fabrications? My point has almost exclusively been to discuss the importance of the in the moment to the face telling people to stop and that different more public levels of doing so are appropriate in some circumstances but not as a general rule.
Really making up the positions of that those who disagree with you? In the spirit of this thread: “For shame!”
I do not speak for any “side” just for myself and okay so far I’ve done more the abstract as in post #70:
In #201
In #237
You desire specific examples?
Far end things like criticizing Todd Akin in a mass campaign for his statements about how a woman can’t get pregnant from rape. Someone with a large soapbox in some power should have a mass protest with the aim of getting him fired.
The dentist who killed Cecil the lion a bit less far end but at least partially meets my standard. It gets over the line because the main focus of the internet mob was on changing the laws that allowed such behaviors, not on punishing someone who broke no laws (although in my opinion his behavior was shameful).
The family that abused their children and put it out as “pranking” their kids as a way to get views and thus to money? Also hits my standard both on the relative power aspect and given that a major focus of the online movement was to cause a DCFS investigation … to protect the children not to punish the couple.
That only makes sense in the context that you think if can do enough of the first you can accomplish the second.
This is nonsense. No, no one is asking anyone to be nice to anyone, or claiming that not being nice is the same as bullying.
Yes, bullying means something and the innocence of the victim, how much the bully believes the victim deserves it, is not part of the definition. Yeah cite please to the belief that the victim’s innocence or the lack of a perceived good reason is part of what “bullying” means.
Could you please try and address my actual posts, instead of whatever else you’re trying to address? I’ll do my best to address your actual points in this post, and hopefully you can do me the same favor. Your characterization of the OP is also contrary to my understanding, but hopefully we can keep this about our posts and opinions, and not those of others.
My take on Tim Hunt: he made a joke that many (including myself) found trivializing the plight of women in science. It was reasonable to criticize him for it. That doesn’t mean some people didn’t go overboard, and the consequences may have been more severe then necessary. That’s a shame, but not as much of a shame as a prominent scientist trivializing the problem that many women feel unwelcome in science.
His life wasn’t destroyed. He didn’t go to jail for 10 years. He still has a career. He’s still well respected in his field.
I wish that every single ‘bad’ incident, or bad joke, or wrong/racist/bigoted statement, was responded to with a perfectly calibrated, perfectly just, perfect level of condemnation. But we’re all human, and it’s unlikely that when a bunch of people all respond independently, the response will be totally perfect. Better that people respond with how they feel then they feel pressured to be silent. Hunt will be fine.
I’ll also notice that you didn’t respond to my example with the ESA scientist, Matt Taylor. In that incident, he was criticized, and then he sincerely apologized and expressed contrition. His life wasn’t ruined – he didn’t lose his job – and his critics accepted his apology and praised him for it. That was a good outcome – a mistake was made, and criticism led to contrition and personal growth.
Public criticism is a tool, and like any tool it can be misused. That doesn’t mean we should take it out of our toolbelts altogether. I think it was reasonable to criticize Tim Hunt for his joke, and reasonable to criticize Taylor for his choice of wardrobe, and that not all criticism was perfect, and some of the response may have been harsher than necessary doesn’t mean that it wasn’t reasonable to criticize them.
There are countless differences between your anecdote and the type of incidents the OP is talking about. It would be nice if the hate and bigotry people experience on a daily basis only ever reached the level of your Workplace Harassment 101 example of foot-in-mouth, where the asshole learns an important lesson, feelings are mended, and everyone moves on.
And this is an excellent demonstration of why internet shaming is generally not desirable - I think the chap who shot Cecil did nothing shameful at all and the internet hate brigade - including people saying they wanted to come and shoot him.
The man has suffered significant financial harm and possibly irreparable reputational damage for engaging in a perfectly legal activity that harmed no-one, affected no-one and had literally nothing to do with the people shaming/threatening him.
The whole thing is an excellent example of why “recreational outrage” is a dangerous thing, IMO.
this just shows that different people find different things to be shameful. Selling lion murder in order to raise money to cover the kleptocracy of your country is shameful to a lot of people.
Well Marti Enfield you are free to apply different standards to when, if ever, calling for mass protest action via social media is appropriate than I am, and as to what is or is not something worth protesting about.
Indeed I agree that identifying and harassing the hunter was wrong (even though you and I disagree on whether or not it was “shameful”), but to me using this episode to raise money for wildlife protection and as a catalyst for a review of the laws and policies and for changing them in some cases was fair. One year later (June 2016) the dentist’s practice was doing just fine; he took a few weeks hiatus was all. He stilldrives his Porsche (although unrelated to the episode someone stole his expensive boat and crashed it). Still his personally being targeted and subjected to attempted internet justice was wrong IMHO.
I’d like to back up though from the specific examples to the general principles.
Do the general principles on what is appropriate when that I have attempted to articulate make sense to you? Would you modify them at all in the abstract?