I’m not so sure it actually does that. It may be creating political alliances between those that aren’t racist and the racists. Even worse it might actually increase racism. I’m still early in Karen Stenner’s book “The Authoritarian Dynamic” but her shorter paper “Three Kinds of ‘Conservatism’” gives an interesting look at her research into why this might be. Authoritarianism, one of those three kinds of conservatism, seems to be a genetic predisposition. (I can’t help thinking that shaming over racism falls into the same futile category as anti-gay “conversion” camps employing religiously backed shame to try and overcome genetic predispositions.) Worse, authoritarians seem to respond to deeply divisive messaging in socially counter-productive ways like more overt racism. From Stenner’s paper:
Reinforcing social and political divisiveness through highly emotional public shaming campaigns seems to be the equivalent of walking up to society’s big red “Maximum Racism” button and pressing it repeatedly. The Atlantic a while back looked at Stenner’s book in an article “How Conservatives Can Save America.” It covered ways that the authoritarian impulse might be fought more effectively. Quotes that resonate with me:
It resonates with me because I’ve got doses of both status quo and libertarian predispositions behind why I am a Republican. Messaging has gotten to the point where there are attempts to use social shaming on everyone who’s Republican or a Republican leaning independent. It’s not hard to find attempts to characterize my preferences for deliberate social change and relatively limited government intervention as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. I’m deplorable despite voting for Clinton and talking two Sanders supporters into going out to vote for her. I’ve watched too many of my fellow non-authoritarian Republicans make those unnatural and unnecessary alliances culminating in Trump’s election. A chunk of our political discourse is looking at potential allies against authoritarianism’s most vile manifestations, turning it’s back, and hammering the red button energetically.
[QUOTE=monstro]
So no, I don’t care how a bigot feels. But I do care how the victims of bigotry feel.
[/quote]
It’s not directly about caring about the bigots feel IMO. It’s about whether a given behavior in response to them is effective.
As the internet has enabled divisiveness through media bubbles and allowed for much broader social shaming campaigns we’ve seen a strengthening of authoritarian movements in long established democracies both in the US and Europe. White supremacist groups have proliferated. As technology has enabled more and more widespread shaming, right wing authoritarianism has made a resurgence. Maybe it’s coincidence. Maybe it’s not. Increased ability to shame has correlated with more of the behaviors you want to shame. If Stenner’s theory is right, it’s contributed to that increase. Best case it hasn’t been enough to stem the tide.
Maybe it’s time to at least consider other options.
That’s a better way to put it. If someone invites me to listen to them, I’m open-minded enough to sit down and let them have their say. But as soon as they start spouting hateful rhetoric, especially of a personally offensive nature, I am not obligated to continue listening to them. Free speech goes both ways. You are free to say what you want to say. And I’m free to both ignore you and badmouth you. IMHO, one can’t be in favor of everyone speaking their minds and also have a problem with people covering their ears and/or shouting back.
I don’t advocate wanton violence. But if someone is throwing punches at innocent people, I’m okay with those people punching back. If someone is throwing punches at me, I’m going to do my best to fight back. I don’t demonstrate my superiority by being a pacifist. I demonstrate my superiority by not being the type of person who punches innocent people. I’m not too wimpy to fight when the fight is worthwhile. I think if someone is brave enough to walk in front of a camera and throw down fighting words, then they are inviting the consequences that follow. Whether that be a punch in the face or a few weeks worth of pointing and laughing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
If I were to meet this lady, how would I treat her? Would I point and laugh at her? No. I only point and laugh at funny things, and I don’t think she’s funny. But if I was looking to fill a position in my department and an application with her name came across my desk, I’d probably throw it right in the garbage. Would I give her the cold shoulder if we showed up at the same meeting? Well, yeah. I’m not going to go up to a bigot and be smiley-happy to them, especially being a person of color. I will be polite if she approaches me, though. Am I going to stare her down until she breaks down in tears? No. Would I go door-to-door and let everyone know what she did? No. But if a friend was thinking about going out on a date with her, I wouldn’t hesitate to clue him in on her history.
Really, “internet shaming” and “old school shaming” aren’t that hugely different. The presence of the internet certainly magnifies shaming so that the negative ramifications are felt for a longer time. But it’s not like “old school shaming” isn’t vicious. At least with internet shaming, people aren’t throwing virtual stones at the town harlot , nigger lover, or nutjob. People who truly deserve some degree of ridicule are targeted. And celebrity shaming history has shown us that it doesn’t take that much for people to forgive and forget as long as the magic combination of words are said to the right people (Oprah or Dr. Phil)
If her name is never released to the press, I doubt Trader Joe’s lady will face any consequences.
The people of Massachusetts Bay Colony were just as convinced that Hester deserved it.
Your opinions aren’t objective truth, any more than theirs were.
I’m reminded of the dialog in Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra where Brittanius is outraged to learn that Ptolemy and Cleopatra are born king and consort just as they are born brother and sister. Caesar apologizes for his outburst, explaining that Brittanius is a barbarian, and thus thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
Lucky we aren’t talking about anti vaccine advocates. I think that’s one of the specific cases where this topic REALLY gets sticky (along with AIDS denialists and similar).
Your opinion about healthcare isn’t objective truth either. And yet that doesn’t stop you from arguing in a GD thread as if it is.
I’m assuming you must believe Hester Prynne deserved to be imprisoned and shamed for the remainder of her life. Because your rather cryptic post seems to be implying that it is wrong to condemn her treatment, since doing so would require one to be like the barbarian Brittanius.
At any rate, I don’t think a woman who lives 120 miles away from me belongs to a different tribe from me. I know NoVA is a fucked-up to live, but it’s not that different from Richmond.
Honest question. Let’s say her employment is unaffected – is the employer then fair game for joint shame?
Must agreee it is more meritorious to be the person who early on says “Whoa, there, NOT cool!”. Which will almost certainly get you at least a few “lighten up Francis” replies. Joining the wave of momentum once it has taken a life of its own is easy.
Indeed – this is one important consideration. There have always been things that are “just not done in public” or “not spoken of in polite company”, and they have changed with the mores of the time and place. The notion that we must all let it ALL hang out and let our freak flag fly everywhere and all the time is relatively recent in our culture and it turns out to be more honored in the breach. Doing and saying whatever you feel like as the impulse may come to you is not conducive to efficient life among others.There is a reason why “character” means both a role you play on the stage AND the way an individual tries to apply values to his life. Because both relate to learning a set of behaviors and expressions that are what you will show to others in the world for their approval, and through repeated rehearsal and practice they come to flow naturally (and the “wrong lines” become hard to say “accidentally”).
Social disapproval of a particular conduct or expression, as pointed out, is a way for a society to self-police when it would only make things worse to actually outlaw it. I don’t want a society where they can throw you into jail for speaking your mind but those of us who as a result conclude you are an ass may decide to treat you accordingly in social interaction. Sure, some feel this lacks satisfaction especially when it means those rich or famous or well-connected enough can be asses with impunity or only minor inconvenience.
Why don’t you just pass a law against heathenism? That should take care of the problem. There are some people around here that I have a real problem with.
Is your end goal to end bigotry or feel good about shaming someone?
If it is the former, it won’t work. Pissing people off, which is the standard reaction when you try and shame someone, will only push the person deeper into whatever view they espoused.
If you haven’t noticed, a large chunk of public discourse now takes place in little bubbles. This is due to the whole shaming idea. State something that the majority of whichever group you are speaking to disagrees with and the dog pile begins. So, the simple answer to that is to find people who agree with you and only talk to them. So we are forming all sorts of little groups that reenforce certain beliefs by attacking anyone who disagrees and those groups don’t seek outside opinions.
If your goal is to feel self righteous, then shaming is the answer.
Heathenism isn’t a real problem in the world. It just means “someone who doesn’t adhere to my religion.” Bigotry is, though. And this absolutely blatant kind is about as universally considered wrong as we can get.
That’s the problem I have with these sorts of comparisons. We’re not dealing with religions, where people with different ones disagreed. We’re not dealing with something one group from on high says is wrong. We’re dealing with something that people from all sorts of diverse backgrounds all agree is wrong. So the comparison is inapt.
This woman is saying objectively evil things. We need to actually provide consequences for evil. We can’t make a law against this sort of thing, so it falls upon society to take what she’s saying and say “This is not acceptable. We will not tolerate this.”
If we don’t stop her, then we’re effectively condoning what she does. We’re saying it’s okay that people have to face this woman and her complete lack of empathy for others. We’re saying bigotry is okay.
But it’s not. So, yeah, bring on the shaming. That doesn’t mean I accept it in other situations. And I will always be wary of stuff that is misleading. But this isn’t, so bring on the shaming.
Everyone in the entire world should be ashamed of saying bigoted shit like this. If they aren’t, then we need to provide that shame for them. It’s no different than throwing a murderer in jail because they need to learn that murder is not okay.
We may not be able to agree on everything that is bigoted, but we can agree on this. So let’s get rid of it.
You know, I was just thinking the opposite. Normally in these sort of viral shame videos I suspect mental illness - like the woman who went off at the couple kissing in the fast food place not very long ago, or the woman who dumped a cat in the wheelie bin.
But this woman looks completely in control of herself, and smugly self-satisfied
. Not mentally ill, just a really nasty human being who’s enjoying the sensation of trying to grind someone in the dirt.
I’d like to deter bigoted behavior, yes. That would include being openly racist and anti-Muslim in a public setting.
I am under no delusion that we can end bigotry.
I don’t care whether a cunty person is pissed off.
But if they pump their brakes on all their cunty behavior because they don’t want people pointing and laughing at them anymore, or they don’t want to lose their job, then I would consider this a win.
Furthermore, I’d consider it a “win” if other people have second thoughts before they go on a racial tirade in public. Shaming doesn’t just keep the “shame-ee” in check. It also puts others on notice.
Please. Not another lecture about “bubbles”. Bigots don’t operate in “bubbles”. They are all over the internet. In almost every forum I participate (besides this one), they are there. Anyone who doesn’t know there are whole lot of people out there who believe that non-whites are teh evil is either living under a rock or they’re willfully blind.
I’d like to be able to walk into a Trader Joe’s and not have to listen to these people. I understand that I don’t have that right, but I still think it would be ideal. So if I should bump into someone who can’t keep their hateful yap shut, why shouldn’t I try to teach them a lesson? Ignoring them obviously hasn’t worked. Neither has killing them with kindness. Why not hold a mirror to their face and let them experience the stigma they’d like for others to suffer from? You’re not going to be able to convince me that doing this makes the world a worse place. At least not by talking about “bubbles”, as if it is the victims of bigotry who have the closed minds and thus are responsible for all the hatred against us.
It may make them angry, but it also means they can’t say this stuff without being worried that someone is filming it. Anyone in their “bubble” may be undercover filming them. And, if they’ve missed the message this long, that’s probably the best we can do.
This euphemistic bullshit where we pretend this is about a “disagreement” needs to stop. I don’t disagree with this woman about Muslims or Obama. I think she is a bigoted sack of human garbage. I would consider what she’s saying to this man in front of her a form of assault.
I genuinely do not believe that this is a problem that can be dealt with by speaking. If it could, it would already be done. We’ve been pointing out how wrong this is for decades now, with all the arguments in the book.
At some point, we have to stop and realize that there are just some unwinnable people, and mitigate their damage as much as possible until they are no longer with us.
This woman has a chance to keep it from happening. Apologize and say she didn’t realize how horrible her harassment of this man was. Then maybe she can be taught. If not, turn her over to the dogs of public opinion.
I’m going to go ahead and say “no”. Yes, what the woman said is probably terrible (I didn’t bother to see for myself). But I don’t think we want to live in a world where people should be afraid to say what is on their minds (regardless of how stupid) for fear of inciting a virtual mob largely immune from the consequences of their actions.
It’s like left wing protesters tearing up Berkley because they don’t like Milo what’s his name. You know what also sends a message? Addressing an empty auditorium because no one showed up to see you.
And it doesn’t work, by the way. People (especially racists) tend to stay within their virtual bubble on the web.
