Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Editing in an age of outrage

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#21

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

panzagl wrote: post #18
lukifer wrote: post #4

There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are…

In many ways the Church was the old institution of moral power- an attack on reputation could be mitigated through confession and repentance, with the confessor acting as a judge would for the State. Of course once the Church had its own reputation crisis it started to crumble from the top, and nothing has really taken its place.

That's why many countries have a public figure with limited political power, such as British queen or German president.

They serve as a "conscience of the nation".

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#22

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

Miner49er wrote: post #20
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we have right now is not shaming, it's bullying. Boycotting a movie because the director cheated on his wife is no different than beating a classmate because his mother is fat. I can only hope we'll eventually outgrow it.

No, those are very two different things, and that example actually shows the difference between bullying and shaming well. The director is being shamed for something he did. The kid is being bullied on the other hand, because it is over something out of his control.

Fair point, I stand corrected then: let's consider beating a boy because he is fat?

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#23

Post by Miner49er »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #22
Miner49er wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those are very two different things, and that example actually shows the difference between bullying and shaming well. The director is being shamed for something he did. The kid is being bullied on the other hand, because it is over something out of his control.

Fair point, I stand corrected then: let's consider beating a boy because he is fat?

I should've also pointed out there is also obviously a huge difference between not going to see a movie someone made and beating someone. Also, it's still out of the kid's control, depending on age (parents supply the food) so it's not a great example.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#24

Post by Udik »

RankingMember wrote: post #6

> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do. Well-stated, though in his particular case I think Ian might've done himself a favor by publishing a piece by one of the accusers and their experience alongside the piece by Ghomeshi. I'm conflicted because I understand his point but I also understand the problem with giving someone in Ghomeshi's position a platform, which is…

> some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement.

I think people should take full responsibility for their own personal interpretations. We worry way too much about how some people may interpret something. There are interpretations that are legitimate and others that are not, and we need to find the courage to state it clearly.

The problem is that we have granted a superior moral status to people who proclaim themselves as victims; and stretching the interpretation of something to claim the victim status has become extremely easy, because once you've attained it nobody dares to question your interpretation anymore.

Example: I say "A", you interpret it as "B", claim you're the victim of an offense. At that point I can't question your interpretation anymore because I'd be questioning your victimhood. Checkmate.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#25

Post by opwieurposiu »

lukifer wrote: post #4

There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are…

We used to have a way to deal with reputational attack, the duel. If a gentleman's reputation is attacked, he may demand satisfaction from the offender. The offender could reject the duel at the cost of being known as a coward. If the duel is accepted, honer is restored to the victor of the duel. So much more elegant, faster, cheaper then the current system of lawyers and judges and various other third parties who all want to be paid. Bring back the duel!

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#26

Post by bduerst »

Aloha wrote: post #7

"Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do." I think this is the entire message of this article, and its one I wholeheartedly agree with too - suppression of speech, be it governmental or by internet mobs is detrimental to a free society.

What do you think about Popper's paradox? The reason I ask is because even the philosophers behind free speech didn't see it as a blank check for every expression, and agreed that there are situations where a free society benefited from speech being curtailed.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#28

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

Miner49er wrote: post #23
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point, I stand corrected then: let's consider beating a boy because he is fat?

I should've also pointed out there is also obviously a huge difference between not going to see a movie someone made and beating someone. Also, it's still out of the kid's control, depending on age (parents supply the food) so it's not a great example.

Depending on circumstances, boycotting a person and running his (or her) career may cause more suffering than beating.

While these two situations are different, they have a lot in common:

- the casus belli often has nothing to do with the bully. Being fat is my problem (unless you sit next to me in the airplane). Me cheating my wife is between two of us. None of that should be anyone's business

- the purpose of both actions is hurting the individual, not correcting the behavior. Being beaten is an awful way to lose weight.

- both actions are collective. Those trying to confront the bully are risking to become the next victim.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#29

Post by renox »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #21
panzagl wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many ways the Church was the old institution of moral power- an attack on reputation could be mitigated through confession and repentance, with the confessor acting as a judge would for the State. Of course once the Church had its own reputation crisis it started to crumble from the top, and nothing has really taken its place.

That's why many countries have a public figure with limited political power, such as British queen or German president. They serve as a "conscience of the nation".

I'm French and I prefer very much 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' as a moral standard than British's queen/king who are definitively not equal with their subjects.

Re: Editing in an age of outrage

#30

Post by Theodores »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #25
lukifer wrote: post #4

There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are…

We used to have a way to deal with reputational attack, the duel. If a gentleman's reputation is attacked, he may demand satisfaction from the offender. The offender could reject the duel at the cost of being known as a coward. If the duel is accepted, honer is restored to the victor of the duel. So much more elegant, faster, cheaper then the current system of lawyers and judges and various other third parties who al…

Curiously the duel died out. There is a field in Gloucestershire where the last UK duel was held and it was a very long time go. I don't think the law was the reason for the demise of 'the duel', I also wonder if it loomed larger in literature than in life.

Although a 'bit silly' I think there is also something to be said for 'the duel'. Participants have 'skin in the game'. Plus there is conduct and rules that you don't get in a street gang fight.

If I was a rich man I would like an antique set of duelling pistols, matched and in their antique case, there as 'art'.

Post reply on HN