11–20 of 53 posts
This is a very common refrain in the help-I'm-being-censored community, but I wish Buruma had tried to introduce some sort of evidence for this idea.
Ghomeshi's story is the opposite of that, since he was enormously well liked (including by me) prior to these several dozen accusations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure. On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular social media website; while there was a large downside associated wit…
The outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more positively than the hatred from those who didn't. What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred?
I'm not trying to invalidate the OP's point, just showing how the social shaming from those who don't matter (TWDM™) can lead to a somewhat positive outcome. It's largely a matter of your sensitivity to the social pressure which in the author's case was very high (he lost his job).
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…
>If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure. On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular social media website; while there was a large downside associated wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure. On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular social media website; while there was a large downside associated wit…
There's a popular growth hacking and viral marketing book that talks about how to leverage outrage mobs to create publicity for your releases. The tactic described seems to be used regularly on many social media platforms, but the author went the extra mile and helped organize physical protests against the product he was tasked with marketing.
> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do. This is a very common refrain in the help-I'm-being-censored community, but I wish Buruma had tried to introduce some sort of evidence for this idea. Ghomeshi's story is the opposite of that, since he was enormously well liked (including by me) prior to these several dozen accusations.
It should also be noted that, while Ghomeshi may have been well liked initially, he was not so well liked by the time he was "silenced", so the statement still holds true IMO.
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…
I can only hope we'll eventually outgrow it.
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…
Of course once the Church had its own reputation crisis it started to crumble from the top, and nothing has really taken its place.
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…
That is, the right is restricted to the state.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious.
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.
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…
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.