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".
Shame Storm
21–30 of 247 posts
Re: Shame Storm
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agendas are like you-know-whats... everyone's got one. I wouldn't say I agree with them on everything but this is definitely on the sane side as agendas go, especially these days when vast numbers of people seem to have eaten the brown acid. They also deserve a bit of credit for being pretty up front with it.
Yeah, everyone has an agenda, and I find theirs particularly noxious. You can immediately see their agenda shining through in the linked article once you know what to look for, like how they defend a man who was fired from the Atlantic for advocating for the death penalty for women who get abortions, and poo-pooed the notion that his presence might make his female coworkers very uncomfortable. I don't know about you,…
Kevin Williamson is the child of an unplanned pregnancy. He was born a few months before Roe v Wade. He could easily apply your logic and say he's uncomfortable being around people who would advocate that he could have been killed before he was born.
I don't agree with his position on this at all. But I especially disagree with the 2018 approach of deciding that we can't tolerate people who think differently from us, and that we have to banish them so we're not uncomfortable.
If someone is going to physically harm you, or harass you, that is one thing. But we have to be able to tolerate differences of opinion. Pro-life people literally believe that millions of babies are being killed every year legally. It's a good thing they don't generally refuse to hire any pro-choice person on account of this.
Re: Shame Storm
#23One of the funny and snarky things Jordan Peterson has said is that he "figured out a way to monetize social justice warriors".
Which is true in some sense. He's become well funded through donations and book sales even as groups of people direct a ton of hate at him. He can afford to almost totally ignore them, because for every hater there are ten fans.
Which leads to a crazy thought: If the social media mobs knew that they were going to make their victims rich, might they moderate themselves somewhat?
Would they tell each other to "stop talking about X, you're just making them more money!"
I think some kind of meme like this might be a strong antidote in some cases. Maybe some benevolent person or organization could give a $100k patreon seed to each victim of the mob.
Maybe one solution to hateful internet mobs spewing bile is loving internet "mobs" sending donations.
Re: Shame Storm
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
So rather than debate the content of the article, you go for argumentum ad hominem instead? You should give pg's Hierarchy of Disagreement a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#/media/File:Graham%...
I'm literally debating the content of the article in the comment you replied to.
> I don't know about you, but if one of my coworkers were calling for people like me to get the death penalty for doing something that was legal, I too would feel uncomfortable being around them.
The entirety of your root comment and the first paragraph of your comment afterwards seems to be ad hominem, while the above quote is not.
I think your argument would be stronger if you had just commented with this sentence; it's a very fair position to have. While I'm empathetic to those who disagree with anything, and I think that we should try and increase the size of the Overton window wherever possible, advocating for the death penalty for an action that would apply to coworkers can absolutely, and understandably, create discomfort. Maybe enough to warrant the removal of that individual.
Re: Shame Storm
#25Re: Shame Storm
#26Public shaming can either become less common or more common over time. If it becomes more common, it might eventually become less damaging. Right now, because only 1000s of people have been targets, it's feasible for employers to search online and not hire people who've been shamed. A historic parallel of diminishing effect is posting identifiable pictures on the Internet. It used to be a big no-no, because when only…
This comment seems to woefully underimagine ways that public information can be used against you.
Your public photos that are now just one in a large crowd are also subject to having your image deepfaked into revenge porn, used as a spam photo for bot account sign ups, scraped for facial recognition, found instantly by a background check seen by your employer, used to attach demographic info to your name in those shitty phone number / address aggregator sites.
These are just things we know about today. Wait till your public photo is used to trick a self-driving car or biometric scanner. Or hundreds of other things that will be invented between now and forever (since your digital photos are instantly preserved and forever available).
Hope no one analyzes your photo and charges you higher insurance premiums because you were holding a cigarette.
Re: Shame Storm
#27FYI, here's the agenda of these people: https://www.firstthings.com/about/ First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and educational 501(c)(3) organization. The Institute was founded in 1989 by Richard John Neuhaus and his colleagues to confront the ideology of secularism, which insists that the public square must be “naked,” and that faith has no…
So what? Having actually read the article, nothing about the author's conservative viewpoint or religiosity is hidden (e.g. " In October 2010, I appeared on a panel to promote a book of essays by young conservatives, Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation. " and " ...my belief that suffering is sometimes necessary for personal growth, and an essential part of God’s plan for our salvation... ").…
I tried this road but got nothing but "I know you are, but what am I" in response. I think you also won't have much luck with this tactic.
Re: Shame Storm
#28The 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.
Re: Shame Storm
#29I had the thought the other day that what we're seeing here in the West is like an informal version of China's social credit system, and perhaps that something like China's social credit system is almost unavoidable when everything is hyper-connected like this. This is what humans do, and when you connect them all at scale they do it at scale. The specific mores and taboos don't matter. People get hung up on this bei…
The mere existence of the emotion of „shame“ shows that this mechanism is old, probably older than Homo sapiens.
It’s simply a way to get people to behave in a society, without invoking the heavier tools such as the law.
Re: Shame Storm
#30Why is this dated January 2019?