“Should we allow swords in street fights?”
We can say yes, or no; we can’t limit the use of swords to situations in which the sword wielder is on the side of the angels, because the determination that one sode os that of angels cannot reliably be made and agreed to by all.
If shaming is permissible against the bad guys, then it will be used against guys we think are good guys, by other people who don’t agree.
Certainly. It doesn’t matter if it’s “permissible” or not – people will always be free to criticize others, unless we get rid of the 1st Amendment. Public criticism is a tool like any other, and like any tool, it can be misused. Sometimes it’s appropriate to publicly criticize and call someone out. Sometimes it’s not.
Yes…and so what?
Boycotts are effective in punishing bad companies that do bad things. Boycotts can also be used unfairly against good companies that do good things.
We can recognize this and still support the individual’s right to boycott.
Fair enough.
Fair enough ^ 2
My apologies. I’m not the first in the thread to make this comment so I thought it was OK. Nevertheless I will dial it back.
The problem is pretty much everyone knows that, in this context, “sharing something with the community that one thinks ought to be shared” is accompanied by the addendum of “See how awful this person/thing is? Aren’t we good for hating on this thing? Let’s see who can be the most outraged about it!”
My personal view is that it’s not appropriate to “call out” people in public for anything except very egregious acts (such as hitting a misbehaving child multiple times).
A lot of the time, the person doing the objectionable thing knows lots of people don’t like it - do you think people who wear “Speak English or Fuck Off” T-Shirts are unaware a lot of people find that sentiment objectionable? Of course not, but they don’t care.
Calling them out and saying they’re a racist dickhead in public is only going to retrench their “Fuck everyone who doesn’t like my opinions” views (or worse). So while the “Shamer” might feel that warm glow of sweet righteous indignation, ultimately they’ve probably done more harm than if they’d just minded their own business.
It seems to me that commenters are falling into three camps:
-People shouldn’t be shamed for anything because moral relativism. There is no good or bad, offensive or not offensive, rude or not rude. What gives anyone the right to judge anyone for anything? Racist/bigoted speech aren’t any different than any other speech.
My response to this position: Hogwash. I am not a fan of shaming someone over every little offense. But I do think ass-showers invite derision and ridicule when they do the ass-showing out in public. I also am skeptical about this claim that shame is never effective at curtailing behavior.
2. The SHAMING SHOULD BE PRIVATE Camp. This group isn’t against shaming as long as it is a one-on-one activity. The woman recording the video had the right to shame the bully, since she was the target. But she should have shamed her right then and there in the grocery store, and not put the encounter out on Facebook for others to see. Or if she really had to go this route, she should have censored the bigot’s face. At least one of the following justifies this position:
-Public shaming can result in bad things like unemployment and loss of friends. No one deserves to lose their job or be lonely, not even bigots.
-Public shaming can escalate to illegal acts, like death threats and violence.
-Public shaming is the cowardly way of handling breaches of decorum. Real heroes stand up to their bullies in real time and don’t hide behind a camera.
-Public shaming may not even be warranted. Once the video is out there for everyone to gawk at, the outrage can snowball until the thing is thrown way out of proportion. So it’s better not to even take the risk.
My personal comment to this position: I think it is reasonable to keep things private for everyday acts of douchebaggery and assholery. I think it would be wrong to public shame someone for a microaggression, like asking a tone-deaf question about someone’s ethnicity/religion or telling an off-color ethic joke. In these kind of situations, you should do what you can to shame the person right in the moment, without escalating it to the “masses”. However, I don’t think the “masses” care about piddly stuff anyway. If I were to leak video footage of one of my coworkers speaking fake Ebonics, I really doubt the video would go “viral”. Public shaming only works if there’s a critical mass of people who are outraged. So I’m not too worried about the slippery slope concerns.
But I disagree that all shaming must be done private.
-Shaming, whether public or private, is effective at curtailing an individual’s bad behavior.
-Public shaming is effective at deterring bad behavior in the population in general.
-Public shaming also informs people that there is problem. If the woman targeted by the Trader’s Joe bully had told her friends about what had happened to her but didn’t have any “proof”, some/most of her friends probably wouldn’t have believed her, especially if her friends aren’t Muslim. Audio/video evidence of racism/bigotry is much more compelling. (To be fair, she could blocked out the lady’s face and still achieved this aim.)
My personal comment to this position: I agree with it. I concede that public shaming can go overboard, but so can any punishment. A guy was recently sentenced for 18 years for possessing a few joints of marijuana. Does that mean that we should stop sending people to prison? I concede that there is a chance that people can be unfairly targeted by public shaming, but I think the risk is very low since it is always the person’s own words and actions that are used against them. I concede that there is a difference between public-shaming a public figure (Daddyofive) and public-shaming a lady standing in the line at the grocery store. But the lady standing in the line at the grocery store did unload her crap in a public forum, surrounded by surveillance cameras and camera-equipped phones. What person living today doesn’t know that whatever you do in public is fair game for the six o’clock news?
I don’t think employers should feel obligated to fire their employees just because they show up on the six oc’clock news. But given that many of us live in “at will” states and can thus be fired for no reason at all, it would seem to me that people would be smart not to take their employment for granted, and the easiest way to do this is simply by controlling oneself when out in public. I wouldn’t shed a single tear if it turned out Wall Street bro got fired from his job when his image went viral, because 1) he isn’t entitled to that job and 2) there are no doubt a million other people who can do his job without acting like an ass out in public. When you act foolish in front of others, you suffer consequences. This has been true since Heck was a pup.
I don’t understand what “ass showers” have to do with this.:eek:
It has nothing to do with “moral relativism”. It has to do with living in a society where people who say unpopular, even offensive things are not shouted down and intimidated by an anonymous mob. If for no other reason that there is not a consistent definition of “offensive”.
So, you’re saying that the chances of a violent assault go *up *if the perpetrators know for a fact that their crime is being filmed? Interesting.
Well, in that hypothetical, the delta between “my ability to defend myself,” and “their ability to kick my ass,” is admittedly pretty stark. At what point does a person - particularly a member of a vulnerable minority - get excused for worrying about getting a beat-down if they confront a random bigot?
I’m sure my opinion will carry little weight, given my history on this board of downplaying and disregarding the importance of gay rights, but fuck that guy. He got exactly what he deserved.
I think what you just wrote should cause you lose your job. Kids should be taken away. Perhaps divorced. Wishing severe harm, which losing a job and friends is, is shitty behavior. Now I should lose all my junk for writing that. Where does the pathetic madness end?
See how a "consequences " for freedom of speech quickly degenerates into abuse? I don’t really think you should suffer due to your writings, speech, or beliefs. I do think there is value in pointing out that the mob and its standards of acceptable discourse are not a controllable phenomenon.
Nothing should be done. Get on with your life and stop worrying about the rantings of random people. Or better yet print out some of the recipes from the pit and give her one.
If you were Wall Street Bro’s boss would you fire him? In a hypothetical scenario where his employer saw the photo and an internet mob didn’t happen, I would say there is about a 1% chance the guy gets fired. Same deal with the woman who lost her job while on a flight. If there’s no mob then then issue is resolved with a half hour face-to-face meeting at the longest. Instead we get a bunch of randos trying to destroy a persons life. That’s not justice. Its a good thing getting someone fired is about the worst thing that you can contribute to from behind a keyboard.
I think that’s my biggest issue with using internet shame as a tool to fight bigotry. There’s no rhyme or reason to who gets made an example of and to what extent. Do you think Wall Street Bro or the Trader Joes fool was the worst person in America that week? They just happened to come up on your newsfeed. In a nation of millions going ballistic on a couple people a month is an awful way to get things done.
Because that’s not what monstro is advocating. She is advocating that a person loses her job for years. That she’s ghosted by all her friends. For a rant? Yeah it’s crazy to suggest a person suffer years of financial and mental harm over any comments.
Wait til machines can read your thoughts or genetic testing can determine your anti-social potential. What fun that’ll be.
So what? Whatever she hopes is the result, what she’s advocating for is the same as me - public criticism and calling out of bad behavior.
Again, is any behavior bad enough to warrant calling out publicly? I say yes. That doesn’t mean every instance, but it does mean some of them.
Sorry, but I find this incredibly naive. There’s a reason we ask even small town teenagers to be safe with personal information online, after all.
Serious question: how often does things like this really completely and utterly ruin people’s lives, as octopus and others have suggested? I do not count doxxing, which it seems to be generally agreed is another thing entirely.
Oh, I agree - but my point is that if you have 500 followers on Twitter and you say something like “The Emperor’s clothes look very silly and he needs to lose some weight”, it’s not reasonable to expect you’ll be on the front page of a major news site the next morning with RANDOM PERSON BODY-SHAMES EMPEROR and your social media feeds full of people calling for you to be tarred, feathered, lightly killed, thrown into a volcano, buried in soft peat for three months then recycled as firelighters.
Often enough for it to be a non-trivial concern. We hear about the major cases with “high profile” people but I’m sure it happens at varying degrees locally too.
You know, we’ve been public shaming people for a long time. Just watching the local news this morning, I saw about three or four different mug shots. And gasp! Their names were even mentioned!
I’m guessing if these people were to lose their jobs or their friends, the majority of the LEAVE THE RACISTS ALONE! camp would shrug their shoulders. Even though the suspects alleged offenses have yet to be proven in a court of law.
I’m wondering if someone might care to explain why broadcasting mugshots is okay, but releasing uncensored video of someone being severely harrassed isn’t.
Every person over a certain age knows that wishing something doesn’t make it happen.
Personally, while I might think you are an asshat for wishing harm on me, I’m not going to sit here and pretend that you aren’t entitled to wish whatever you want. However, if you get in my face and say those words to my face and someone just happens to be recording you, you don’t get to turn around and cry “NO FAIR!” No one forced you to be a jackass to a random stranger. Presumably you have the ability to control yourself. Free speech does not entitle you to a consequence-free existence. If you don’t understand these basic principles, your employer has every right to question whether you’re a good fit for his or her organization.
All this special pleading about jobs is making my head spin. Are you seriously suggesting that someone would be in the wrong for recording a workplace bully and presenting the evidence to their supervisor so that the bully can be fired? Find me the amendment that entitles people to a job.
What happens to all the racists who lose their jobs and friends? Are they just going to be wandering the streets like hordes of feral cats?
I ask this semi-seriously. There are a lot of racists (for varying degrees of racism). A lot. You can say, “I don’t give a fuck about what happens to them,” but the thing is, they’ll still be there. It’s not about their pwecious feewings, it’s a practical question about the fact that your neighborhood is now comprised some percentage of unemployed, maybe on the dole, maybe homeless people and their children. The story doesn’t end after we get our kicks and vent some anger. If we want to pretend that this kind of ostracism is serving a social good, then we need to look at it holistically. And I just don’t see how putting barriers up to employment and social and civic participation for large portions of the population would be a net benefit.
But isn’t the “point” of this kind of shaming to address public displays of racism, and not any underlying beliefs/behavior patterns that remain invisible? If the object is to discourage people from being outwardly racist, then poking people enough or in just the right way to bring forth a racist response is completely counterproductive.