Even if you think internet-driven public shaming is wrong, I’m not seeing how it can be stopped. All we’re talking about is normal human tsk-tsking; it just seems like it’s a different phenomenon because incidents that used to stay extremely localized can now be accessed by millions of people and the tsk-taking can be documented on social media. Just how do you stop that? Is the expectation that people should now cease from remarking on socially undesirable behavior out of concern that their voice will be added to a massive and potentially influential choir? I think expecting that is as unrealistic as expecting abstinence-only programs to prevent teenage pregnancy.
Ever since Tamir Rice was killed, I’ve believed we need to direct more outrage towards people who carelessly sic the cops on others just because they can’t be arsed to either confront the person themselves or better yet, find bigger fish in life to fry. Cops are public resources that should be used judiciously, and so I can’t find tears to shed for you if you summon the police for a petty, mean-spirited reason and you end up vilified online.
And it’s NOT a mob. Every post and tweet is the singular action of an individual independent of the other commenters.
But if your behaviour is both so public and so egregious, that huge numbers see it and express their disdain, I’m thinking your behaviour is the issue. Not the volume of people who find it egregious.
And I believe people of privilege actual do need to see that this shit happens, in public, on the street, to innocents and it’s NOT an exaggeration. The value in that, by far outweighs those who righteously deserves to get slagged for their behaviour, getting more push back than they bargained for, in my opinion.
You haven’t sufficiently differentiated this from public critique, though. Let’s suppose a story goes viral and everyone who sees the story is limited to only one social media comment about it not to exceed 100 words. That’s still potentially a million or more comments out there, airing much outrage. The 999,999th commenter who sees the story and throws in his two cents is just as entitled to express himself as the 1st, so the question is how realistic is it to expect this poster to censor themselves when, in their eyes, all they’re doing is making an inconsequential comment on Reddit or youtube?
It would be one thing if we saw internet outrage over trivial stuff, like someone picking their nose or having a period accident. I would be bemoaning our priorities as a society if such videos went viral and displaced real news. But videos of people having racist and xenophobic tirades or cowardly trying to initimidate children are behaviors that deserve ridicule, even if that ridicule leads to job loss and humiliation.
I was once forced to resign from a job because my employer thought that servicing him sexually was one of my duties and he didn’t want to take “hell no!” for an answer. I also had to explain that one to prospective employers, without actually going into the specifics and it wasn’t easy–and I did nothing whatsoever wrong. Life is unfair, shit happens.
No, I despise this trend. I’m well aware people can be obnoxious busybodies and some insist on following rules to the extreme, but this trend of shaming them and causing them to lose their jobs is wrong. I might have a slightly different set of standards for a very high level executive, but that person should already know that they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. I don’t think a clerk in account payable needs to be shamed and fired because of something they did outside of work.
Mug shots and arrest records are slightly different since those are public. But, I don’t agree with the over the top Joe Arpaio approach of posting mugshots on billboards just because someone is charged with a DUI after one too many martinis at a wedding reception.
The action of every mob member is the singular action of an individual. And neither mob members nor online pile-on participants are acting independently.
My point of view is this: who is any of us to make these kinds of life-changing attacks based on 30 seconds of video? Make all the judgments you want, say that person is a piece of shit, and move on. There is no need to make your judgment public except to feed your own feeling of superiority.
It’s true that I nor anyone else can stop this phenomenon. But we can stop feeding it with our own participation. Start by acknowledging that you don’t (and never will) have anything like the whole story.
Finally, if you think people of privilege will take away any sort of life lesson from someone else’s comedown, it is to laugh, ha ha. No-one ever sees themselves in such cases, and the worse the person the less they will believe anything bad about themselves. You only reveal your own shortcomings by participating in or cheering on these attacks.
Trying to figure out what you mean by this, so bear with me.
Which of the following are acceptable responses from the public if this hypothetical clerk from accounts payable is seen doing something uncommonly cruel and gratuitous. Let’s suppose he’s seen bullying an overweight kid on the train. The incident is caught on camera.
Passengers on the train should refrain from saying anything to the clerk, lest he feel shamed. In addition, whomever caught the scene on camera should not post it online, lest the clerk be shamed by the internet
Passengers can speak up but the person with the video should not post it online, because if public shaming happens, it should always stay local
Passengers can speak up and the person with the video is free to share it online, but internet viewers should refrain from commenting about it, lest the clerk’s employer catches wind of things and decides to fire him
Passengers can speak up, the person with the video is free to share it online, and internet viewers are free to discuss it; and if this leads to the employer firing him, oh well, karma be a bitch sometimes
After you select your answer, then consider how it might change if the person with the camera was the kid being bullied. I think it’s easy to say we should always prioritize the dignity and financial viability of others, even when they do supremely jerkish things. But in these days and times, when people are victimized by jerks they don’t have to suffer in silence; they can fight back in ways that were unheard of only 20 years ago. All the “should’s” in the world aren’t going to change this reality, so if jerks don’t want to be shamed and fired, maybe they can think twice before acting on their jerkish tendencies.
People are free to share the video and discuss it, but the bully’s employer should refrain from firing him for off-work behavior.
And possibly:
3.5: The person with the video is free to share it on-line, but should obscure obvious identifying information, like the faces of both the bully and the victim.
Very simple. You* should stop doing it. I never did. If a lot of people agree to stop, then it will dwindle away to small potatoes. Each person needs to take responsibility for their actions.
Next we should castigate the shamers. Tell them to stop it when they do it.
YOU may not be doing it now, but this is the generic 'you".
Or maybe you didnt really do that or there is a good reason which is not apparent (like the guy shoving someone out of the way of danger). You are then acting as judge, jury and executioner without even hearing the other side.
All you “know” is a brief, shakey and fuzzy vid clip and the mob howling for blood- so of course you join the mob.
What is “it”, exactly? Where is the line between the free market of ideas regarding a particular publicized human interaction and the public shaming that you’re calling a problem? I find it hard to believe y’all think its inherently wrong for people to express a negative viewpoint sbout someone else online, but that seems to be case. Please define your parameters so that we can understand the change you’d like to see.
For example, was this Pit thread that I started months ago an example of the kind of public shaming you’re talking about? If no, how is this thread really any different than the commentary on facebook, reddit, or any of the many fora where public shaming allegedly occurs? If yes you think its part of the problem, do you really think the internet would be a better place if we couldn’t talk freely about things like this? What distinguishes a subject worth ridicule from one that is not, and who gets to decide that?
We do a lot of “public shaming” here on the SDMB. Someone posts an article about someone doing something horrible, and we all take turns talking shit about that person.
Are we doing that in a vacuum? Or are we contributing to “mob justice”?
