Precisely my feelings on the issue.
Recreational outrage is a dangerous thing, especially in the internet age.
I’ll have to take your word for it on the shoes - I didn’t notice at the time, and I can’t bear to go back to the vid for a second go round. Her whole demeanour reminded me of high school bullies - giving me flashbacks… I really admire the calmness of the video-creator - being the target of concentrated malice is pretty unnerving, even where there’s no actual raised voices.
I don’t think the consequence, in this case, of the video going round is too harsh for her (I don’t always think that, but in this case I do). First because this is no off the cuff remark or joke gone wrong - she really deliberately meant to say all those things, and she wanted the person who was filming her to feel shamed and humiliated - she was targeting her. So there’s a certain amount of justice in her being shamed and humiliated herself.
Secondly, I don’t think she’s going to be all that humiliated. If her opinions come out that easily, probably everyone who knows her already knows that’s what she’s like. So what extra social consequences are there going to be? In three weeks time the rest of us will have forgotten what she looks like, and in six months you probably won’t even be able to find it on a google search.
I don’t support her losing her job over it though. As much as anything, because it smacks of corporate CYA - I bet anyone who employs her knows what sort of person she is, and to fire someone over an incident because it’s public is a little bit “well, we’re ok with you being a nasty bigoted piece of work, but we’re not okay with other people knowing we’re ok with it”
I actually agree with both of these statements.
When I think of individual examples of internet shaming, I tend to see them as a bigot getting his/her comeuppance—for example, the teacher who posted a nakedly racist Facebook rant about the McKinney, Texas pool party incident in 2015. She was fired, and arguably deserved it. “Free speech” doesn’t mean consequence-free speech, and that teacher is certainly free to go on posting hateful stuff if she wants (and can handle the blowback).
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’ve read the Jon Ronson book mentioned earlier, and although many of the people he interviewed certainly had it coming (particularly Jonah Lehrer), I found his portrayal of the internet shaming phenomenon genuinely frightening.
Yes, the internet is powerful, and often terrifying. So it’s important to have an ethic of what sort of boundaries we put on how much people can legitimately be targeted for what they have said.
For instance, I myself am personally ok with “if you have said or done something in public, it’s fine for it to be publicised.” And, yes, sometimes this will lead to shame and embarassment if you said or did something really bad. But not normally ok with people getting fired from their jobs for private statements, or being docsed or cyber-stalked.
In fact, I think it would be a good idea if it were illegal to fire someone based on private social media posts. Yes, this would give some nasty types something of a free pass to be nasty (though they could still be shunned and embarrassed), but it would also protect someone whose conservative employer was upset to see them post “I’m so scared for the future of the country since idiots put that bastard Trump in the White House”. We should probably remember you can be consequenced by either side of politics
Agreed. Where’s the due process…? Where’s the ability to mount a defense? Who here feels they have the right to be judge-jury-executioner all rolled up into one tightly-strung package? That person was ignorant, true, but what was the FULL backstory?
We only know part of it… the part from where the record button on a phone hidden in a person’s hand was activated. We don’t know what led up to it or for how long they were interacting, which is just half of the truth… and half truths are just one step away from petty and vicious gossip.
What if this went back to a parking space dispute from when they both arrived at the store? What if the person who was so righteous was literally chasing the ‘bigot’ around the store with her cart, being aggressively obnoxious until she was able to push the woman past a polite social facade so she could film a reaction for petty revenge?
Two years ago, the local news went on and on about a road-rage incident that had an off-duty cop dressing down a driver he had pulled over. Granted the cop was screaming in a rage… but the piece was obviously filmed by someone who was already set up to film.
Someone lying down on the floor of the backseat of the non-cop’s car. Q: How many people do you know ride round lying on the floor of the backseat of someone’s car with a camera? I’ve heard of groups of people who intentionally drive around trying to force bad reactions from people so they can film it
(I think one group likes to call itself “The Set-Up Kings”). How do I know that this isn’t a hatchet-job committed by a group like that? Whats the full back-story of the person who filmed the clip? Have they ever been arrested or charged for assault or for harassing people prior?
In a town near me last year, after a town council meeting didn’t go their way on a real estate development deal, a group of people chased one of the councilman and his wife to their car. (A second group was parked in a car parked by his car already with a camera ready to go.)
The first group wouldn’t let the town councilman or his wife close the doors to their car, pushing it back open and yelling every time he tried to pull the car door closed. Eventually, the town councilman got up and reacted and a scuffle ensued as he tried to get the harassers away from his car door so he could close it and drive away. A nicely edited clip showing the councilman in what looked like an unprovoked aggressive attack on protesters ended up on the Facebook page of a community site the next day, and it looked pretty damning.
Well it did until footage of 100% of what happened from a security camera across the street surfaced a day or so later…
I understand a lot of what you’re getting at, but IMO, if you bust out racist speech, even if provoked, you’re almost certainly a racist. I really don’t think there’s a “justified” time for it, unless you truly do harbor those beliefs.
Also, in regards to the post above yours, WTF is a “private” social media post?
A White South African. While it was a stupid and arguably a racist joke, especially considering, you know, a White South African, the whole #hasJustineLandedYet which trended on Twitter, and people going to airport to live tweet (and snap) her arrivalwas frankly over the top.
I would put this down to apurposeful misrepresentation, sorry outright lying by a journalists with many problemsof her own as far as the “truth” is concerned.
This is a journo basically lying to get a story, and gutless officaldom trying to save themselves and throw another under the bus which would happen regardless if shaming the internet was a thing.
On the other hand, the vitriol she faced after her deception came to light by those well known feminists atBrietbart news is an example of counterproductive internet shaming.
I’m wondering if people who have a problem with the TJ woman being blasted out of the water also have a problem with Rachel Dolezal being blasted out of the water. It’s been two years now and she’s still an internet joke. Personally, if she had expressed remorse early on, I would be on the “leave Rachel Luther King* alone!” side. But since her latest interview shows she still is playing the victim, I can’t muster up a whole lot of sympathy. In her case, shaming hasn’t seemed to have given her much insight. But at least she’s no longer in a position where she can perpetuate awful stereotypes about black people in the workplace (i.e., claiming her colleagues are stealing “her” job). (I do worry about her kids, though. They shouldn’t be penalized just because of their guardian’s behavior.)
I don’t recall a lot of people defending this lady either. And it looks like the internet shaming may have been effective, because this is what she looks like now: You Won't Believe What 'Tan Mom' Patricia Krentcil Looks Like Now!.
Right? It’s not like she’s been shamed for having unconventional or controversial opinions. She’s being shamed because she’s been a racist asshat for no apparent reason. If we can’t all agree that this is shameful behavior, then something is wrong. Since when did Dopers become a bunch of namby-pamby moral relativists?
I’m seriously doubting that if the woman had been spouting radical Islamist, anti-American rhetoric at the grocery story, Dopers would be recommending we get out of our bubbles and listen to it since it might contain some truth. And I think few people would be upset that such a terrorist sympathizer was shamed on the internet.
For anything else, we love to say “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. Or in other words, “We all make choices.” But for some reason, that doesn’t apply here. For situations like this, you can say stupid hurtful shit and everyone around you must care for your feelings and not bother you, lest you turn into a bubble or something. All this time I’ve been thinking keeping stupid shit to oneself is supposed to be a good thing. But now I’m being told that this is wrong.
I’m just not getting it.
*Rachel Dolezol claims that someone once complimented her by calling her "Rachel Luther King. I am dubious.
If I might hazard a guess: If you’ve got a fairly small number of followers, it’s probably not a reasonable assumption that anything you say on The Book of Face or Not Quite Enough Characte will end up broadcast to a notable portion of the Anglosphere and appear on multiple major news outlets.
ETA: I agree wholeheartedly with Dseid.
Of course it is “a matter of degree” and the venue. And once you go with the internet/media pubic shaming route you eliminate any degree to the response: you immediately turn the dial to eleven.
In the specific case of the OP example. The opportunity to express your public disapproval is in the moment if you are there. What should not be done is the: Let’s put out a Wanted poster and form a posse to hunt the women down and impose frontier justice upon her! Let’s gather up the mob, we the mob are judge jury and executioner. Ah know alls I need to know pardner.
For a public figure (the other end of the spectrum), especially one who makes policy but even one whose public soap box amplifies the speech/behavior, the level of response is more appropriately more public. All the way to where it qualifies as speaking truth to power.
In between, a regular person putting something offensive on Facebook, should have the people who normally look at their posts commenting that such is not funny and offensive immediately, but spreading it out virally to those who gather pitchforks and torches demanding the person lose their job and worse (“Kill the beast!”)? No.
Most of the time people who join these mass viral-spread destructions of everyday people’s lives delude themselves that they are doing some pro-social good but what they are really doing is engaging in recreational mob action because it is fun to be part of a mob. Nothing more. The same people who’d have loved to go to a good public hanging in days past and in another culture would say that cutting out a tongue for offensive speech will send a message to others to not speak like that. IMHO.
Aspidistra I think you have a very limited stereotyped understanding of mental illness but I won’t belabor the point.
To the OP: I think it’s a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused. I don’t have a problem with people expressing bigotry being criticized for it or even fired for it. I don’t have a problem with, say, businesses owned by people who have expressed bigotry going out of business because their bigotry went public and they lost their customers.
Obviously death threats or anything like that goes too far.
Pretty much every racist, sexist, or misogynist out there would say this. I’m not saying you’re any of these things, but almost everyone that falls into one of these categories doesn’t realize it, and would insist that everyone they know would agree.
If the fact that it’s actually not very rare for racists (in the South and elsewhere) to tell black people to go back to Africa is a surprise to you, then your knowledge and understanding of modern racism is pretty damn deficient.
If it does, I don’t know how effective it is. From my experience, the best way to change people like that is to have them interact with the people they fear, providing them with an opportunity to learn. That’s certainly easier said than done, though, especially in a country where we have enough space for people to run away from those they wish to avoid (historically, this has usually happened).
Ultimately, if this past election has taught us anything, it’s that people like her will always have a right to vote their more honest opinions and they’ll have many people who secretly agree. I think moderate amounts of shame can be effective when directed at people who are self-conscious/aware, but I don’t think it does much of anything to true bigots.
Shagnasty, I can’t help but recall the thread you started a couple of years ago complaining about how the South is supposedly unjustly attacked and criticized. I’ll respond the same way now that I did then (I’ve bolded the parts that I think you’re not getting):
Authority and culture in America in general, but especially in the South, were the active and deadly enemy, akin to 1930s Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa, of black people, for most of American history. Only very, very recently was the South not overwhelmingly dangerous and hostile to the possibility of free lives, justice, and dignity for black people… and parts still are (modern sundown towns like Vidor, TX come to my mind).
Apologies if this is a hijack.
You seem to want to be the one awarding the prize and you’ll find lots of people on the internet who will joyously help you because they enjoy a good pile-on. Of course, onceyou set things in motion, you have no control over the events that follow. Some of the strangers on your side will be cranks and crazies.The doxing, the stalking, the death threats, the harrassment that are part of every internet mob scene will happen and, although you started the process, you won’t be able to stop it. If you’re good with that, carry on.
That’s not what’s happening. At least once per page, and often more frequently, I make clear it’s my opinion, not objective truth. Here are some examples:
Post #1: I believe this is a wise policy move.
Post #104:Whether it’s better or worse really depends on what you think government is for, and from whence it derives its power.
Post #155: That’s a pretty gross distortion of my opinion.
Post #235: I’m not claiming that the ACA unconstitutional, or nullified, or illegitimate. I claim that in my opinion, there is a wise role for federal government and that this role does not include paying for everyone’s health care.
Post #256: There’s also no question that the feds can force people to pay for such a plan using their taxing power. In my opinion, this is an unwise exercise of the taxing power and an unwise view of the reach of the taxing power. But it’s settled law, now.
Post #331: Here is the sentiment I have consistently advanced in this thread: *
Since I’m not saying that the ACA was unconstitutional, but merely unwise as a role of government…*
Post #498: In my opinion, leaving standing precedent that vitiates the federal/state distinction is even more unwise.
That’s an incorrect assumption, since then I’d be valorizing the views of Massachusetts Bay over all else.
Is distance the only “tribe” involved here? Is it possible that someone in the same city might have dramatically different social mores and values than you do? Or must, perforce, everyone in Virginia agree with your views on these matters, on pain of shaming?
Monstro says in the OP that she hopes the Trader Joe’s customer suffers, but only for a limited time, “I hope this woman catches some shit. I hope she gets fired from her job. I hope her friends ghost her. I hope she gets the cold shoulder at PTA meetings. I hope people point and laugh at her. Not forever. But for at least a few months, though a year or two would be great.”
But as you said, you can’t control how long the harassment lasts or keep it from getting out of hand. I’m sure there are cases where online shaming has gone too far, and I would not be surprised if someone dies as a result (either at the hand of a shamer, or via suicide).
There’s no “starting the process”, unless telling someone publicly “you’re wrong to say that” (or equivalent) is “starting the process”. Do you really think it’s wrong for people to say “you’re wrong to say that” to someone if they have a problem with something that person said? Does that invite bad behavior by others?
Questions of effectiveness aside, I question whether it’s possible to have a blanket view towards internet shaming without oversimplification.
There are probably some situations where the outrage towards an offender leads to unfair consequences. People can be vicious and blood thirsty once a mob mentality overcomes them. The internet is a convenient conduit for mob mentality because you don’t have to even leave your house to partake in the rock throwing. You can do it virtually and anonymously.
But most of the time, the “rock throwing” is nothing but a thousands of opinionated people expressing their opinions online. How do you stop people from communicating about a subject that interests them? And why should we want to stop that? If society is supposed to be a better place because of free speech, then that extends to the inevitable backlash that results when free speech causes offense. The internet wouldn’t be the internet if people could only say nice, flattering things on it.
I can imagine plenty of scenarios involving a person becoming victimized by undeserved internet shaming. The situation in the OP is not one of them. To argue otherwise implies she’s entitled to behave like a bigoted jerk without the indignity of facing internet criticism about it.
It’s honestly terrifying how hard people will go after internet strangers over these controversies, real or imagined. If anything, recreational outrage makes it more difficult to combat bigotry as it sets people on the defensive. A common theme that has habit of popping up in racism discussions is the difference between systemic and individual racism. One side will assure the other that only one of these “racist” labels will have half the internet hoping you get hit by a bus while dropping your kids off at school. The assurance is rarely taken at face value and I believe it is partly the fault of the internet hate machine.
The goal here seems to be, “Give me permission to be a morally justified internet bully and encourage mob justice.” I’m sorry that you’re offended that people aren’t cool with that.