Public figures are different. They have lawyers, Publicists, etc. They choose to be in the limelight. Castigate trump all you want.
Not perfect knowledge but at least find out the other side of the story.
Until you have done that- lay aside your torches and pitchforks on private persons.
Sounds like a worthwhile opinion to express to someone who is actually waving a pitchfork, particularly in those situations when it seems like things might not be as they seem.
But good luck if your plan is to accuse people of waving pitchforks just because they post a comment about someone doing something clearly offensive and indefensible.
Clearly? How do you know?
I see this as a cop out, to be honest. If public shaming is wrong for the reasons you state, what does it matter if we’re talking about a public figure or not? If Trump was caught on tape cursing out Latino service workers like that lawyer in NY did, the same amount of info would be available for us to formulate judgements. So why would it be okay for us to express disgust towards Trump but not okay to do the same thing for someone else behaving the same way?
As already stated, once you go out in public and do stuff, you always take the risk of others judging you. Even before the internet, you were never guaranteed that word about your social offenses would stay contained to just eyewitnesses; if you got in a shouting match with your neighbor and impulsively insulted their mama to score some points, by the next morning everyone in town would’ve learned about this through the grapevine. Thanks to the internet and social media, no one can afford to assume that everything they do will stay private; the nature of grapevines today means we all have the potential to become “public figures” simply by having a web presence.
Young adults are getting this lesson pounded into their head every time they apply for jobs. If googling your name turns up pictures of you flashing guys in Daytona, you probably ain’t gonna get that prestigious law firm position, yo. If you can be denied a job because of some ill-considered girls gone wild pics, you can lose a job for threatening to sic ICE on Puerto Ricans.
I suggest you google to teach yourself the difference between a public political figure and a private one.
Because as I said, they choose to be in the public view, they have lawyers, Publicists, etc.
Even if it isn’t her, but another girl by the same name?
They dont seem to get that. :rolleyes:
Just leaving this here:
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/07/01/never-said-high-tech-deception-deepfake-videos/
New technology on the internet lets anyone make videos of real people appearing to say things they’ve never said. Republicans and Democrats predict this high-tech way of putting words in someone’s mouth will become the latest weapon in disinformation wars against the United States and other Western democracies
And I suggest you learn to follow your arguments through to their logical conclusions.
If what you say applies to private individuals, they should apply to public ones. Otherwise you’re just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
Not every celebrity has a public affairs team, either. You think Frank Stallone vetted that tweet about beating up that Parkland student through a PR agent before posting it? Whether he did or not doesn’t change the offensiveness of it, so what does that matter?
How do I know what? I can only look at situations one a case-by-case basis and determine if I have enough to form a opinion about. As we’re all entitled to do.
Take a look at this video and tell me what additional information is needed before expressing something as life-destroying as “woah, that is so fucked up; would hate to have this lady as a neighbor.”
I mean, the guy straight up asks her why does she hate him and she shamelessly admits its because he’s Mexican. And she claims Trump agrees that he’s a rapist too. This is the kind of racist rant that would only be believed if you had video footage of it, but what, we’re the bad guys for sharing it and talking about?
You have only one side, which could be made up.
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/07/01...epfake-videos/
New technology on the internet lets anyone make videos of real people appearing to say things they’ve never said. Republicans and Democrats predict this high-tech way of putting words in someone’s mouth will become the latest weapon in disinformation wars against the United States and other Western democracies."
So what is preventing the woman from coming forward and saying she never said the words we heard coming from her mouth? Are we saying malicious disinformationists are behind this too?
If we’re at the point that nothing can be taken at face value, then why are you even participating on a message board? We might all be bots making up stuff.
And your link took me nowhere, btw.
Nothing. Except the mob doesnt bother with getting both sides, nor do you, apparently.
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/07/01/never-said-high-tech-deception-deepfake-videos/
I thank you for this casting this negative aspersion my way in the same breath you chide others for chiding others.
It is a bit surprising that you can’t see how you’ve undercut your own side of this debate by posting this, but…well, after reading the sentence I just wrote, maybe it isn’t that surprising.
Your very own posts support what I said.
A woman is filmed explicitly saying she hates a guy because he’s Mexican, and your position is that we don’t know enough to judge her. It is also your opinion that the people who do the unthinkable thing of judging this woman—mind you, based only what she said in the video—are the real bad actors here.
Then (as if that isn’t enough) you turn around and imply that I—a fellow citizen of your online community, a long-standing poster with a reputation to uphold—have a disregard for facts no different than that exhibited by some ignorant, close-minded, blood-thirsty mob. And your defense for that opinion is “your very own posts”. Not because I’ve said I personally don’t care about hearing both sides of the story before forming conclusions. And certainly not because I said its always right to reach conclusions without hearing both sides of the story.
Sadly, if you go back and read, you’ll see that most of my posts to you are only aimed at exploring the logic behind your arguments. You should note that I haven’t condemned anyone “shamed” in any of the videos mentioned, not even in the one I just linked to! I’ve asked questions more than made assertions. “How much would you need to know before forming an opinion about someone who professes to hate someone because they are Mexican?” That is a legitimate question, is it not?
But, you know, you are perfectly entitled to reach whatever conclusions you want about me and express those conclusions on this board, in all their wrong splendor. You feel you have sufficient facts to do so, and guess what? So do all the millions who are out there doing the same damn thing you just did. Welcome to the species; we are a social bunch but we’re also highly opinionated.
You’ve posted this link three times. Is this because your single best argument in favor of not believing people said the things they said on video is that there’s technology that can fake videos?
Because, okay: the outrage should be provisional, with the caveat that a person should be able to claim the video is deepfake, at which point folks should examine the video for the telltale signs of deepfakery mentioned in that snopes article.
But frankly a snopes article is a lot easier to spoof than a cell phone video, which leads us to a strange loop scenario: if I’m going to be that skeptical based on your article, I should be even more skeptical of the evidence offered by the article. Fuck, how do I know you’re really even DrDeth? Hacking your account would be a much easier task for a ne’er-do-well than would be creating a deepfake video.
The fact that a particular form of subterfuge is theoretically possible does not mean that we must live in paralysis.
Live in paralysis? :dubious:
No, just stop engaging in mob activity/public shaming vs private citizens, without know all the facts.
This is my problem with some (not all) of these public shaming incidents. PermitPatty said that they had been shouting for hours, she asked them to be keep it down because it was hot and people had their windows open , and the girl’s mother said PermitPatty never spoke to them but went straight to calling the police. I don’t know which is the truth - but judging by what I’ve seen there are a whole lot of people who not only don’t know which is the truth but don’t care which is the truth… And by that, I mean I’ve seen/heard people take the position that PermitPatty not only had no right to call the police, but she had no right to complain about the girl selling water in any way, not even to ask them to quiet down- even if they were yelling for hours. She should have closed her window or not lived across the street from the ballpark. When I’ve asked these people if they should have to put up with yelling for hours outside *their * window, since they are opposed to Permit Patty either speaking to the mother and child or calling the police , they invariably find a reason why yelling outside their window is different - they live in a single-family house not an apartment, or they don’t live across from a park. Whatever they can come up with to justify why this woman should have to endure yelling with no recourse while *they *shouldn’t have to.