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

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#131

Post by yunohn »

superdisk wrote: post #100
yunohn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You and I haven't said anything controversial. You’re the one who said anything could be controversial: > where if it happens that something you said, no matter how innocuous, snowballs for whatever reason, you're screwed I like how you “ [...] “ out the words racist/sexist and proceeded to list exactly those kind of cases. > [1] … Bushnell holding company meetings in a hot tub and attempting to coax a female emplo…

> You’re the one who said anything could be controversial Okay, some things carry more risk than others, but the point I was trying to make is that crazy people can go for your neck (and exhort others to do the same) over any random thing, it's not limited to sexism/racism/whatever. > I like how you “ [...] “ out the words [...] I did it to save space, come on now. You're missing the point of the cases I listed. It's…

> the point I was trying to make is that crazy people can go for your neck over any random thing

Slippery slope is a really weak argument.

> It seems like you've moved the goalposts

I didn’t? I showed how all 3 were incidents focused on sexism, with Damore also being racist.

> It doesn't make this sort of behavior okay

He never lost his job, just an award - in response to actual sexual harassment. How are you seriously asking if backlash is acceptable to his obviously /unacceptable/ behavior?

> They certainly "learned their lesson" from this debacle I'm sure!

We can argue forever if they really meant it, but how will you know?

> Damore's motivations weren't sexist and neither was his memo

Alright, that’s your opinion. Clearly others don’t agree with you. That’s the point.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#132

Post by lazyeye »

k__ wrote: post #121
seattle_spring wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being against showing off shallow acts of goodness done only for clout is not the same as being against good things happening.

I know. But I assume they're strongly correlated. I.e. people who are against virture signaling want to get rid of it, because they got nothing to signal, and it makes them look bad in relation.

Hmmm...I'd argue that most of the people that are virtual-signaling also have nothing to signal (at least on a personal level anyway). It's sort of a lazy, cost-free way to scale the social ladder, just express an opinion that's fashionable. It's hard to think of anything that requires less effort and is at less personal cost.

It's entirely reasonable to find these kind of people irritating and obnoxious.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#133

Post by heresie-dabord »

tomlockwood wrote: post #35

Only Americans would draw a parallel between the military-industrial complex, which dictated foreign policy for the last fifty years and caused countless suffering overseas, with online drama within America.

If we follow the money, the major "social media" businesses are mostly American. The economic interest to promote these businesses as the only medium for discourse.

The "shaming machine" monetises strife. It is a new, lucrative medium.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#134

Post by zozbot234 »

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…

The relevant distinction is not "punching up vs. punching down", which is meaningless, but "punching at actual misuse of power or not". It's very rare that shaming is a useful tool, but it can work indirectly as a form of raising awareness where the "shame" is really just a ploy for virality. Harvey Weinstein, mentioned in the article, is a perfect example: he was engaging in behavior that was not only grossly unethical, but raised very real questions about actual legality. That's where "shame" can work for good.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#135

Post by [deleted] »

motohagiography wrote: post #84

The shame machine has created a disequillibrium, and personally I won't miss it when societies correct. More gravely, I think there is a coming generation of young men who will also wake up one day and say, "I don't need your redemption, it has no value." And like that, they will no longer avoid or deny shame, or be governed by it because redemption is a hustle, the carrot to shame's stick. When they see that they ha…

[deleted]

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#136

Post by tomlockwood »

heresie-dabord wrote: post #133
tomlockwood wrote: post #35

Only Americans would draw a parallel between the military-industrial complex, which dictated foreign policy for the last fifty years and caused countless suffering overseas, with online drama within America.

If we follow the money, the major "social media" businesses are mostly American. The economic interest to promote these businesses as the only medium for discourse. The "shaming machine" monetises strife. It is a new, lucrative medium.

Your comment doesn't appear to address what I'm saying.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#137

Post by [deleted] »

k__ wrote: post #121
seattle_spring wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being against showing off shallow acts of goodness done only for clout is not the same as being against good things happening.

I know. But I assume they're strongly correlated. I.e. people who are against virture signaling want to get rid of it, because they got nothing to signal, and it makes them look bad in relation.

[deleted]

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#138

Post by croonerisms »

yunohn wrote: post #129
janto wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how you want the game to work is that you expect me to defend myself against being called bigoted or yield to your ideology. That's how you are propagating your perspective?

It’s not an ideology - acknowledging the nuances of the actual debate (trans vs women sports) is basic courtesy. Deliberately ignoring it multiple times is malicious.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#139

Post by heresie-dabord »

tomlockwood wrote: post #136
heresie-dabord wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we follow the money, the major "social media" businesses are mostly American. The economic interest to promote these businesses as the only medium for discourse. The "shaming machine" monetises strife. It is a new, lucrative medium.

Your comment doesn't appear to address what I'm saying.

The military-industrial complex was/is a lucrative venture. I think the "shaming industry" is similar. (Can't edit original comment.)

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#140

Post by ncmncm »

It means sarcasm is dead. In most public shaming events I have heard of, the shamed expression was meant to mock people who actually believed in the idea expressed. It would not be surprising if the majority of those performing enforcement were exactly the ones being mocked.
Post reply on HN