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

The Shaming-Industrial Complex

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#101

Post by helloworld11 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #24
hunglee2 wrote: post #2

Shame is a powerful moderator of behaviour considered marginal or taboo in society, likely it forms an essential role in group cohesion. However, it may well be maladaptive at the scale of global society, where the mechanisms of shame - the 'calling out' of transgressors, the dogpiling that ensues following a successful call out - are chaotic, following no process or moderation itself. The inevitable result is self c…

Quoted post unavailable.

I call partial bullshit on your comments.

>In the case of Justine Sacco, here's a thought: if you don't want to be shamed "at the scale of global society"... ...don't fuckin' post an unfathomably bigoted comment on a public, global forum.

Who defines "unfathomably bigoted"? You? A small screeching mob of twitter warriors? A small but influential group of editors and writers for papers like the NY Times and others? You're prima facie assuming that a discourse labeled as bigoted is indeed horribly bigoted.. Given the number of VERY CLEAR examples many of us have seen of highly dubious and sometimes completely irrational definitions of supposed offensiveness (feel free to google search them, there are many), then no, things are not just a full-stop case of "you must be bigoted then if a group of people say you are". Aside from issues of free speech, definitions of bigotry, sexism, racism and so forth have in many circles gone completely off the rails of rational, reasoned thought.

>If you find yourself regularly worrying about whether something you say might be perceived as racist or sexist, maybe it's time to spend time recognizing that your bigoted attitudes towards others are wrong, and doing something about it.

I could repeat the point I already made above here. You make the same very shaky assertion that someone's attitudes are bigoted just because they question certain digital assertions about sex, gender or racism. Nope. Hijacking an argument by assuming a premise is simply dishonest.

Your stabbing argument is also absurd. By widespread practical and moral definition, people recognize that randomly stabbing others is wrong and socially damaging. The same definitely doesn't apply to someone wondering if a person who's biologically a man but had gender reassignment should then compete in women's sports. The latter is far less settled, not just philosophically but also biologically.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#102

Post by dalbasal »

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #90
dalbasal wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are elitist traps in here, somewhere. First, that a lot of people are too uneducated, stupid or uninformed to be responsible for the moral viewpoints. Hence why all blame should be foisted onto the "villainous leaders who manipulated." Second, that your (our) moral viewpoint is the advanced... and the contrary presumably degenerate or primitive. That kind of empathy isn't well received. It's condescension. At i…

This is what makes it difficult to discuss this. It's hard to do without rudely insulting people. How do you find words that are not too condescending. There is a long history of using "the people" to mean non intellectuals including it being enshrined in the US constitution. But that often does not make it clear enough for everyone to understand that we're talking about a vulnerability. Populism gets turned into a d…

Idk, honestly. Maybe there's no way to answer all of these concurrently.

I definitely here your point on non-intellectual populism. There's no requirement for everyone to be an intellectual and a worldview that does require this is also elitist.

Otoh, I don't see many people reacting well to the moral handicap frame either.

Personally, the route I usually go down is to (1) acknowledge that we disagree and (2) show that I can articulate their view respectfully. This is also a basis to move from. I don't think it's the structure or or content of the argument that matters... it's softer aspects like signaling respect, friendship and such.

I don't think this is about making a perfect argument though. I think it takes a complex, multi-year "conversation."

Imo, there's a lot to be learned from feminism. Pissing people off, being the object of hatred and derision was always going to be on a feminist menu. There was never going to be a way forward for feminism that didn't deeply offend and insult a lot of people.

It doesn't end there though. The conversation goes on. Sometimes the femenists walked away from some of their arguments. Often, society conceded feminist viewpoints after years of deriding them.

They didn't expect it to be respectful and pleasant at all times. Maybe you have to go through phases of tension to eventually come back together later.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#103

Post by spawarotti »

verisimi wrote: post #80
spawarotti wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

If you think others are sensitive about a topic, does it seem right to you to make jokes at their expense?

And how do you know if they are sensitive? Are you going to ask them, or not? If not, why not? If yes, would it still be the golden rule? Or perhaps platinum rule - do unto others as -they- wish, not as -you-.

What I am trying to say is that the golden rule and its applicability is far from obvious. You can consider interpreting it correctly the most basic "advanced morality" you asked about.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#104

Post by nostrademons »

Counterpoint (which I'm surprised didn't make it into the article, given its pop-psychology virality and 5.8M YouTube views):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psN1DORYYV0

It's also interesting to contrast recent Pixar portrayals of shame in Encanto and Turning Red, where shame deeply pathologizes a family and leads to a lot of dysfunction among younger members who can't let their true selves out.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#105

Post by KarlKemp »

visarga wrote: post #27
KarlKemp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the kind of reasoning people want to be true, as in „I’m not lazy, it’s just my perfectionism…“ Can anyone tag some name onto these shameless and shameful tribes? Because I can’t come up with anything that I would want to be associated with.

Guilt–shame–fear spectrum of cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fe...

That's really interesting, thank you. I'd always considered guilt and shame to be correlated, as two sides of the same medal. And believe the person above also conflated the two, since their "shamelessness" is really an inability to experience guilt.

So maybe the problem is that guilt (felt by the person without specific external input) stopped working, and shaming is taking its place?

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#106

Post by nostrademons »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #81
tetromino_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional American culture (as compared to traditional Japanese culture, for example). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fe...

Traditional American culture is rife with shame. The concept of “manly men” is based on shame. The concept that women are responsible if they attract unwanted male attention is based on shame. The concept that anyone can succeed so if you don’t it’s because you didn’t try hard enough is based on shame. I could go on?

Most of these aren't really "traditional", they're constructs of the post-WW2 era, where the government & mass media/advertising very consciously tried to institute strong "national unity" norms.

I suspect that the "traditional American" culture GP is talking about is frontier/immigrant culture from c. 1840-1929. There's a good case for that really being a "shameless" culture - you do your thing, I do mine, we'll grab up all the land and all the gold and all the prime industries and not feel bad at all for the natives we're genociding.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#107

Post by KarlKemp »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #63
BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #59

The article kinda misses a major point: > Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame” I would argue that shaming used to promote your political views is often the most damaging kind of shaming because on top of being the most divisive, it is likely counterproductive, an offputting move that damages your brand and often creates a powerful backlash against it. Now there's some subtlety here. I…

Shame is a blunt tool. It's inconsistent. It has no moral value in and of itself. The funny thing about shame is the mental gymnastics that are gone through to justify who should or shouldn't be subject to it and on what criteria. The "villain" is whoever happens to be unpopular or undesired. Vulnerability is spun as a vice or saving grace in the interests of the shamer and his agenda. To paraphrase Cardinal Richelie…

The next best replacement for shame is criminal law. Trust me when I say that's an instrument far less precise.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#108

Post by verisimi »

carapace wrote: post #86
spawarotti wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

It's context-dependent isn't it? The same joke can be harmless fun in one context, and a cruel jab in another, eh? "Do unto others..." isn't a compressed file that expands into generic rules for every situation. (If life was simple enough to be covered by a set of generic rules we wouldn't have evolved these huge calorie-guzzling brains on the ends of our spines, eh?)

'Do unto others' is a principle that can be applied into every situation.

You might think the situation is too broad or complex etc, but your calorie-guzzling brain can work the many and various context-dependent scenarios out. For every wrong there is a right answer. We live in a moral world.

Luckily, its not your job to sort the world out. You can only work on yourself and ensure your actions are aligned with morality.

PS I would reply sooner, but as I have received so many downvotes I get a message to slow down, that I am posting too fast.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#109

Post by spawarotti »

carapace wrote: post #86
spawarotti wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

It's context-dependent isn't it? The same joke can be harmless fun in one context, and a cruel jab in another, eh? "Do unto others..." isn't a compressed file that expands into generic rules for every situation. (If life was simple enough to be covered by a set of generic rules we wouldn't have evolved these huge calorie-guzzling brains on the ends of our spines, eh?)

That's exactly my point. Understanding the dependent context can be considered the "advanced morality" the parent post asked about.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#110

Post by pjc50 »

roenxi wrote: post #56
pjc50 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most successful political innovations - legislative bodies & courts - have both taken strong measures to make it difficult to shame people into cooperation ?!? Legislative bodies used to rely on shame (the opposite of honor) as a means of enforcing unwritten rules. It used to be possible to shame politicians into resigning when they'd crossed a line. “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” -- Joe Wel…

You've just listed 100% of the presidents who's resignations could plausibly be linked to shaming tactics. It is a very, very short list compared to the number of presidents who have had shame deployed against them as a political weapon. The two main tools the parliaments use is regular, time based election cycles combined with very formal procedures making sure everyone gets a chance to speak. In the ones I'm more f…

Those are arguments about shaming _inside_ parliaments and courts, which are obviously controlled speech environments; that has limited effect _outside_ courts, with the exception of sub judice rules.

> well developed traditions against name-calling and insistence on respectful language and behaviours like using proper titles (which can be a bit off-putting seeing how politicians act outside parliament)

Indeed. You can call your opponent a terrorist criminal just fine as long as you step outside the building first.

For a given dispute the court is certainly more likely to find a just result .. if you can afford to litigate. Or, in the case of criminal law, if the prosecutors will prosecute. If they won't, you can only resort to "the court of public opinion", i.e. shaming.

Post reply on HN