Shame Storm • Hacker News Board

Re: Shame Storm

#201

Post by matt4077 » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 1:01 AM UTC

zozbot123 wrote: post #198

matt4077 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, how the misogynistic mob finds a defender here, seeing the good within the hate. Meanwhile, the dozens of incidents cited of sexists and racists rarely get more than a "I, too, believe this is the end of free speech".

Defend the misogynistic mob? That's exactly what parent did not do. Indeed, the unsavory, /v/ element was always a huge liability for GG as a social phenomenon, and I don't know of anyone who would even attempt to deny this.

"It started really bad, but [...] some good came out of it in the end."

That's a defence, without question. It does include an acknowledgement of the harms of what happened, but by pointedly ending with a hand-wavey invocation of some supposed benefits, it is characterising those harms as a sort of necessary evil.

Re: Shame Storm

#202

Post by jacobolus » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 1:08 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #132

jacobolus wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He repeatedly stated that did consumed large quantities of alcohol in late high school and in college. No, he repeatedly denied it (while only admitting that he “liked and likes beer” and occasionally drank beer in moderation). He also made up comically absurd lies about his high school yearbook, and lied about several other more serious topics e.g. related to his work for Starr and his work as a Bush staffer. (I d…

From his testimony: > I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. It may be valid to say that his drinking was more serious than his tone seems to indicate, but to say that he did not admit drinking to excess is factually incorrect.

The description from everyone who knew him was that he got shit-faced several times per week, and was commonly a belligerent drunk.

Did you watch the hearing? If not, I strongly recommend it. I don’t know anyone who watched it all the way through who thought that Kavanaugh was being candid or sincere in response to Senators’ polite questioning.

A nomination hearing is not a trial; you should not be trying to parse his statements as if it were. The standard for a Supreme Court Justice should not be “well if we give him the benefit of the doubt he was grossly misleading, uncooperative, and aggressively disrespectful but a jury might not convict him of perjury”.

P.S. What do you think “boof” and “devil’s triangle” mean?

Re: Shame Storm

#203

Post by nyolfen » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 1:24 AM UTC

zestyping wrote: post #185

NathanKP wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've explored so little of the design space. The design space that we are willing to explore is limited by the fundamental evolutionary drive of social media platforms to hold your attention as long as possible by feeding you little hits of dopamine for minimal effort. Social media platforms thrive on size and activity and neither can be established by raising the bar, only by lowering it to new depths.

I think (at least a few) people are starting to realize that this is what's happening. There may be a window of opportunity opening up to try new and different things. I suspect there are a fair number of folks who are looking for alternatives to Facebook/Twitter/etc. and would be intrigued by novelty. Bumble is an example of a platform that was all about changing the rules of engagement, and it seems to be doing all…

this is the first time i’ve heard someone mention bumble in about two years

Re: Shame Storm

#204

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 1:32 AM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #115

motohagiography wrote: post #14

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." -- Cardinal Richelieu

I'm 44, and either I'm just getting old enough to notice things I never noticed when I was younger, or there's something very concerning brewing - it seems to me like a small but growing subsegment of western society is working as hard as they can to escalate civilization to an actual violent conflict. And, based on my understanding of history, the biggest losers in that conflict will be the ones pushing the hardest…

[deleted]

Re: Shame Storm

#205

Post by perfmode » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 1:59 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #70

perfmode wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That office is so important that I’m happy to wait until the right candidate shows up. And I don’t want republicans or Democrats. I want scientists of law with integrity. And there are plenty competent people with integrity. It is people who lack integrity that marginalize them.

"And there are plenty competent people with integrity." But there are also plenty of people who lack integrity and, if it is permitted and gets them what they want, will fling arbitrarily nasty false accusations at people. There is no one with so much integrity that false accusations can't be made of them. You're pushing a rope.

The Obama family has not had a single scandal.

Re: Shame Storm

#206

Post by viburnum » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 2:13 AM UTC

Buruma deserved to get fired because he had no idea what he was doing or what his magazine's audience was.

Re: Shame Storm

#207

Post by CM30 » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 2:27 AM UTC

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…

Having the system be private with separate groups seems to work pretty well at stopping shaming, or at least minimising its visibility. Don't hear much of this stuff going on in Discord groups or Slack chats or what not, and for many people now, those are their form of social media.

In fact, that may be why such private setups are on the rise. Being private means only your friends/allies/community can hear your thoughts, and it limits your posts' exposure to people who might otherwise try and stir up a mob/cause a media frenzy. I suspect a lot of ex Reddit users joined for that (after seeing how the media likes to dig into subreddits and find controversial posts to mock/mention in articles).

Re: Shame Storm

#208

Post by zeroname » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 2:27 AM UTC

staunch wrote: post #23

One 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 t…

Thus, after I shame you in an unjustified way, I also get to shame you some more for profiting off of your newfound victim status, thus proving that I was morally right about you all along, even when I wasn't.

This is exactly what's already happening - coming from both sides, in fact.

Re: Shame Storm

#209

Post by hnuser1234 » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 2:39 AM UTC

zestyping wrote: post #185

NathanKP wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've explored so little of the design space. The design space that we are willing to explore is limited by the fundamental evolutionary drive of social media platforms to hold your attention as long as possible by feeding you little hits of dopamine for minimal effort. Social media platforms thrive on size and activity and neither can be established by raising the bar, only by lowering it to new depths.

I think (at least a few) people are starting to realize that this is what's happening. There may be a window of opportunity opening up to try new and different things. I suspect there are a fair number of folks who are looking for alternatives to Facebook/Twitter/etc. and would be intrigued by novelty. Bumble is an example of a platform that was all about changing the rules of engagement, and it seems to be doing all…

It's doing alright as in not failing, but remains to be seen if any of their paradigms measurably improve anything.

Re: Shame Storm

#210

Post by nebulous1 » Sat, Dec 15, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #197

nebulous1 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they should have dropped him for simply being controversial. That said, which four have been shown to be lying? Only Munro-Leighton has admitted lying outright, and Swetnick changed her statement enough that you could say she was lying too. And Munro-Leighton admitted she wasn't actually the original Jane Doe accuser anyway. I do believe something happened with Blasey Ford, although ultimately I don't k…

> That said, which four have been shown to be lying? I posted a separate source for each of the four above. The two you're missing are the "rape on a boat" allegation and the woman who initially corroborated Ford's allegation on Facebook before backtracking after questions arose. Keep in mind that at the time, the pressure was on to just drop him as a mere result of a large number of allegations. These allegations we…

I didn't know about the boat allegations.

I agree that a lot of the main stream media, and particularly social media, can whip up a shitstorm over unfounded allegations.

However, the root of the allegations against Kavanaugh did have merit, as in they deserved to be looked into. After they were made a number of other allegations were made with less merit, or outright lies. However, just as there's an issue with rushing to judgement when a number of allegations are made, there's also an issue of letting unfounded allegations cast doubt on other allegations.

The mere existence of unfounded or fabricated allegations shouldn't negatively impact on different allegations, just as the existence of an uninvestigated allegation shouldn't discount him as a candidate. If either or these thing were true it would be too easy to either destroy a candidate or invalidate all allegations against them.

Although a number of anonymous allegations shouldn't mean anything, I think you'd agree that if 10 Blasey Fords came forward with similar stories that would be a big problem. Obviously this is counter-factual, I'm not talking about Kavanaugh only how these situations can be dealt with in the future. I agree that this can get out of hand, but I can't see an alternative. Ignoring Blasey Ford did not seem like a viable option.

Regarding future candidates being vague, this could just be rejected. I don't have an issue with the path to the SC being a difficult and fairly grueling process.

To my eyes the Democrats severely wounded their stance by waiting until the last moment before revealing Blasey Ford. The Republicans lost it during the post Ford Kavanaugh questioning, choosing to grandstand instead of letting the prosecutor they'd specially brought in continue. Both of them fairly disgraced themselves. And let's not forget that the only reason this didn't happen with Garland is because the Republicans abused their power to avoid even having a hearing.