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

Shame Storm

firstthings.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 247 posts

Re: Shame Storm

#151

Post by prepend »

ballenf wrote: post #108

I'd recommend people having kids give them very common names and consider giving them modifications of the last name if it's rare. It's depressing advice and a bit like paying a lifetime of insurance premiums that's likely never to be needed. Unless the concept of a search changes in the next couple decades, getting lost in a sea of similar names is the only defense against unfounded accusations. (Changing one's name…

It’s pretty awesome to have a common name. There are five people in my company with my name. There are at least two in my very small city.

Re: Shame Storm

#152

Post by manfredo »

BryantD wrote: post #144
manfredo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Behavior such as? Most people who I've seen criticize his behavior essentially boil down to criticizing him for not admitting guilt, or because he tried to discredit Ford - neither of which are valid points in my view. Defending oneself from an accusation inherently entails discrediting the accuser, to criticize defendants for doing so is essentially saying it should be socially unacceptable to defend oneself from an…

> Defending oneself from an accusation inherently entails discrediting the accuser This reduces the question to a black and white decision, which is unreasonable. I see two major flaws here: 1. You're eliding the difference between discrediting the accuser's claim and discrediting the accuser themselves. There is a significant difference between saying "that's not accurate" and saying "the person who said that is a d…

>There is a significant difference between saying "that's not accurate" and saying "the person who said that is a drunken loser who has been out to get me for years."

Did Kavanaugh ever say the latter? In fact this line of criticism seems to work in his favor: the label "drunken loser" was applied to Kavanaugh much more frequently than it was applied to Ford, at least from the coverage I saw (admittedly, mostly from left leaning outlets so that may be a factor).

I'm not sure why you brought up #2 given that you later state that you don't know of any instances in which Kavanaugh lied. Yes, if Kavanaugh lied that would be significant. But as you stated in your own comment, you do not know of any such instances. I am not aware of any statement that was proven to be false either, at least outside of tangents that stretch my idea of relevance to the accusations (e.g. contents in his yearbook). So, yes if Kavanaugh lied that would be valid criticism - but we both agree that this was never demonstrated, so this point is moot.

Re: Shame Storm

#153

Post by [deleted] »

beat wrote: post #149
jstewartmobile wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not joking. That, and it doesn't require toughness so much as good aim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Hudson#Duel_and_disast... I'd much rather roll the dice with duelling again than introduce some new, elaborate, and untested form of social engineering.

You should read Steven Pinker, then, if you think going back to a Golden Age of murder over social slights is a good idea.

[deleted]

Re: Shame Storm

#154

Post by beat »

moduspol wrote: post #139
jeremysalwen wrote: post #21

Don't really think the Kavanaugh example really fits in with the rest. Sorry, if you want to be a Supreme Court justice, yes, you should should be held to a much higher standard. Yelling about "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" does indeed count as "partisan bitterness".

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, and pretend you're genuinely innocent of the accusations. Isn't a group of partisan operatives conspiring against you the most likely reason for very conveniently-timed and uncorroborated sexual assault allegations? But put that aside. Maybe he's actually guilty of at least one of them. Even then, though, some of the allegations ended up being false: Most recently here [1], but…

The problem with Kavanaugh isn't what he did as a drunken teenager. It's what he did as a sober adult - his angry, petulant outbursts at senators. A Supreme Court seat isn't just a question of experience or background. It's a question of temperament. Even if he was completely innocent (and being too drunk to remember or too arrogant to think it important isn't the same as innocent), he should have been completely calm and peaceful with the senators.

Think of it another way - it's a job interview. If you were crying and screaming about a conspiracy of your interviewers, would you get hired for any other job?

The GOP should have pulled him and put forward another candidate, one without that controversy. They've managed to find such candidates before. The resemblance of the Kavanaugh vote to a bunch of men having their way with women and covering their mouths while they screamed was unsettling.

Re: Shame Storm

#155

Post by inscionent »

warp_factor wrote: post #28

The issue is also that people got more and more sensitive over ybrast decades. Political correctness seems to be at a all time high. Try to say openly in the bay area that you support Trump and you will be shamed like never before. Shaming is now always in our mind and I find myself thinking more and more about redacting what I say to make it "unshameful" in order to avoid any possibility of shaming.

> Try to say openly in the bay area that you support Trump and you will be shamed like never before.

Try being a 12 year old, in the south, who is openly mocked and degraded by his father for having a friend of a different race. How's that for shaming.

Try being a 16 year old, getting kicked out of your home and called a faggot for getting an ear piercing. Are we politically correct yet?

There is a lot of hate in this world and it is very rich for people to just turn and point the finger instead of taking a long hard look inside themselves and the company they keep.

If you believe what you believe, then stand steadfast in the face of the tsunami, but don't blame others for forcing self censorship, that's just cowardice.

Re: Shame Storm

#156

Post by Izkata »

zestyping wrote: post #82
jerf wrote: post #47

As I've mentioned before, one of the interesting things I like to study in a casual way is the effect of social community structures on behavior. At this point it is not terribly controversial that modern social media systems encourage shame storms, via things like easy "viral" sharing, the existence of moderation systems that can be used to nuke any attempt to defend oneself out of existence, and the way modern soci…

It's weird to me that almost all posting/commenting platforms are about the same. You get a series of small boxes with text in them and a small box to type into, usually too small to fit more than a couple of sentences, perhaps a button to promote, a button to reshare, and that's it. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Medium, Disqus... all the same. We've explored so little of the design space. If I had to hazard in extrapo…

> Short or low-information comments are discouraged; if your comment is short or an exact duplicate of something previously written (e.g. a common insult), it's blocked or you have to wait longer before posting it.

I am for this one in particular, if for no other reason than to see more Shakespearean insults due to people being forced to get creative.

Re: Shame Storm

#157

Post by BryantD »

manfredo wrote: post #152
BryantD wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Defending oneself from an accusation inherently entails discrediting the accuser This reduces the question to a black and white decision, which is unreasonable. I see two major flaws here: 1. You're eliding the difference between discrediting the accuser's claim and discrediting the accuser themselves. There is a significant difference between saying "that's not accurate" and saying "the person who said that is a d…

>There is a significant difference between saying "that's not accurate" and saying "the person who said that is a drunken loser who has been out to get me for years." Did Kavanaugh ever say the latter? In fact this line of criticism seems to work in his favor: the label "drunken loser" was applied to Kavanaugh much more frequently than it was applied to Ford, at least from the coverage I saw (admittedly, mostly from…

No, he did not say such a thing.

I'm not specifically addressing Kavanaugh, I'm pointing out a flaw in your logic. You made a general assertion, which I'll quote again: "Defending oneself from an accusation inherently entails discrediting the accuser, to criticize defendants for doing so is essentially saying it should be socially unacceptable to defend oneself from an accusation."

Did you mean that, or did you generalize a bit more than you intended while defending Kavanaugh?

Re: Shame Storm

#158

Post by BryantD »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #142
BryantD wrote: post #37

I have a pretty simple algorithm for articles about the dangers of public shaming. If they fail to catalog GamerGate and the online shaming of Zoe Quinn as an example of the problem, they are probably not a balanced look at the phenomenon. I find Justine Sacco's case is a reasonable metric for the other half of the equation.

My understanding of the GG drama was that it started fairly unsavory, but rapidly became about something entirely unrelated to Zoe and her relationships. The reaction from the gaming media organizations being accused of serious (if video games can be serious) lapses of journalistic integrity, complete with multiple examples of it just poured fuel onto the fire. After that, I stopped following it, but it does seem tha…

Agree in part, disagree in part -- but nonetheless it's a pretty significant episode of public shaming, and I have a hard time imagining a really high quality article about the subject that doesn't cite it.

Re: Shame Storm

#159

Post by yongjik »

jerf wrote: post #53
perfmode wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His attitude while defending himself on the stand is the basis for which I would rescind his nomination. His behavior was not befitting of someone who is about to be conferred lifetime appointment to the highest court in the country. I don’t want him crafting laws and making decisions that impact huge groups of people.

Stand in his place for a week and tell me that. To echo manfredo, if the only people we can nominate to the Supreme Court are people who can just calmly sit there while the absolute worst accusations possible are flung against them, we're not going to be nominating new justices any time soon (Democrat or Republican). Or, alternatively, we're going to get a very, very distorted set of justices who lack all emotional a…

> Stand in his place for a week and tell me that.

Imagine going to the less well-off part of America and start a conversation like that.

"Imagine you're accused of rape twenty years ago and you have to defend it in front of angry people."

"So, if I fail, I go to jail?"

"No, not really."

"...Are they gonna beat me up?"

"No."

"Do I lose my job? My house? Will they take my daughter away for me being a rapist?"

"No, none of this happens. But a lot of people will call you names."

"...A lot of people call me names for just walking around!"

Re: Shame Storm

#160

Post by zozbot123 »

BryantD wrote: post #157
manfredo wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is a significant difference between saying "that's not accurate" and saying "the person who said that is a drunken loser who has been out to get me for years." Did Kavanaugh ever say the latter? In fact this line of criticism seems to work in his favor: the label "drunken loser" was applied to Kavanaugh much more frequently than it was applied to Ford, at least from the coverage I saw (admittedly, mostly from…

No, he did not say such a thing. I'm not specifically addressing Kavanaugh, I'm pointing out a flaw in your logic. You made a general assertion, which I'll quote again: "Defending oneself from an accusation inherently entails discrediting the accuser, to criticize defendants for doing so is essentially saying it should be socially unacceptable to defend oneself from an accusation." Did you mean that, or did you gener…

I would not say that the "inherently" in that comment should be read as a necessary condition, since some false accusations are the result of e.g. mistaken identity, that entails no blame on the accuser. However, it certainly is the case often enough to deserve mention, entirely aside from what the specifics of Kavanaugh's case might be.
Post reply on HN