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

The Industrial Revolution of Shame

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#41

Post by pjc50 »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #38
orthecreedence wrote: post #2

This is getting pretty bad. The thing that really bugs me is when people are shamed for things they did 20 or 30 years ago. 20 years ago I was prank calling people and saying some pretty awful stuff to them. Would I do it now? No, of course not. I've changed. Should I be shamed for something that long ago? I don't personally think it's productive. I guess there's a balance, though. If I had questionable character now…

This is especially interesting when it comes to comedians being fired for tweets/work they made in the past. I've heard it compared to being fired for ones current coding position because one has 10 year old code on their github that is trash / poor quality. Of course, that seems absurd. But comedians are fired for jokes they made years ago when they come to light. Was the joke bad? Probably. By today's standards and…

> But comedians are fired for jokes they made years ago when they come to light.

Could you give an example of this?

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#42

Post by partiallypro »

Outrage culture exists, in part, because it is very profitable. News outlets have an incentive (for clicks/ad revenue/social engagement) to find something to be outraged about 24/7...even if it is completely absurd. The problem is this really is eroding the trust in media. Even if something is so absurd that most people disagree with it, the hate clicks/engagement from that is well worth publishing it.

The only real way to solve this, imo is to start punishing these publications by simply no longer engaging with them or supporting them. Even good publications (I'm thinking Wired, which generally is good, but lately has published some absurd things.) Until then, or until the ad business model changes...this will continue.

We should be looking at alternative business strategies for media, so they aren't dependent on the absurd. That extends to cable news as well. Fox, CNN, MSNBC have all turned into clown shows...and what anyone that has been on these programs or done media training will tell you...the producers often book people simply for being absurd. Merit it no longer what matters, it's all about engagement to drive ad revenues.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#43

Post by 40acres »

Shame has always been a part of human nature, doing shameful acts -- like eating up all the reserve food that the tribe worked so hard to store is appropriately responded to with shame from peers.

Social pressure has it's place in society, as with all things the internet takes everything about the human social experience and turns the dial to 11. I think we are only just coming to grips with what actually should be shamed on the internet. As with all things, we will reach an equilibrium. You don't kick someone out of the tribe for a simple mistake that has a slim chance of happening again if the proper amount of social pressure is applied.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#44

Post by LiquidSky »

pjc50 wrote: post #41
AlwaysRock wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is especially interesting when it comes to comedians being fired for tweets/work they made in the past. I've heard it compared to being fired for ones current coding position because one has 10 year old code on their github that is trash / poor quality. Of course, that seems absurd. But comedians are fired for jokes they made years ago when they come to light. Was the joke bad? Probably. By today's standards and…

> But comedians are fired for jokes they made years ago when they come to light. Could you give an example of this?

Not sure what the parent meant, but the example of Kevin Hart losing the Oscar hosting gig this year because of tweets from 2010-11 that used anti-gay slurs comes to mind.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#46

Post by dfxm12 »

iron0013 wrote: post #3

Man, it really feels like at this point the reactionary response to “outrage” is orders of magnitude larger than the initial outrage ever was. I never, ever even hear of any of these supposed outrages until I hear folks going on and on and on about how opposed to the “outrage” they are

Yeah, I don't know why people get upset over what a bunch of nobodies are tweeting. I don't think it's newsworthy either, but that's way out of my control.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#47

Post by LiquidSky »

orthecreedence wrote: post #2

This is getting pretty bad. The thing that really bugs me is when people are shamed for things they did 20 or 30 years ago. 20 years ago I was prank calling people and saying some pretty awful stuff to them. Would I do it now? No, of course not. I've changed. Should I be shamed for something that long ago? I don't personally think it's productive. I guess there's a balance, though. If I had questionable character now…

>Should I be shamed for something that long ago? I don't personally think it's productive.

I see your point, but surely you see how this is a bit self-serving, that you'd give yourself a pass.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with holding people to long-ago behavior, but the argument is that your actions had consequences on other people, often people who didn't have a voice at that time. It's easy for the white person who said/did racist things in their past to say it was a long time ago and they've changed so what's the big deal (note: not accusing you of this, just an example) whereas the black people on the receiving end might see it differently.

When I was growing up it was very common and acceptable to use f*g/other gay slurs as a normal part of conversation. I could say that it didn't mean anything and was just how we talked, but then again I'm not gay and didn't have to live with it.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#48

Post by Fei8reim »

orthecreedence wrote: post #2

This is getting pretty bad. The thing that really bugs me is when people are shamed for things they did 20 or 30 years ago. 20 years ago I was prank calling people and saying some pretty awful stuff to them. Would I do it now? No, of course not. I've changed. Should I be shamed for something that long ago? I don't personally think it's productive. I guess there's a balance, though. If I had questionable character now…

> It's a constant drive to feel outraged about something.

Are people actually outraged or do they pretend to be outraged because it gets other's attention to their issue? And doesn't that take attention away from issues that are less... click-baity?

Essentially, isn't this another negative outgrowth of the attention economy?

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#49

Post by gotocake »

_bxg1 wrote: post #32
scottlocklin wrote: post #31

Witch hunts are nothing new; people have been doing this for as long as there have been people. I'd even go so far as to say the mass media have been doing this for at least 150 years now. What's new is its weaponization as a tool for political control in the West.

What's new is the explosion of scale the internet has enabled.

Not really, I think the literal Inquisition still has us beat.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#50

Post by AnimalMuppet »

maze-le wrote: post #23
malvosenior wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True post-modernism should also dissolve a staunch moral evaluation framework thus dampening outrage. What we have is some mix of modernism (rejection of classical thought) and fundamentalism (harsh judgement with black and white morality).

The way I see it, post-modernism has enabled the outrage machine in the first place, by dissolving the borders between fact and fiction and dismissing context in any form. When everything is interpretable in any possible framework truth, reason and nuance become just another straw in the haystack and not something individuals should strife for. You suggest we don't have true post-modernism, because it is not critical…

If I understand correctly, one of the things that postmodernism says is that all speech is about power, not truth - that all claims of truth are really assertions of power.

It's not just that the border of fact and fiction has been dissolved. The question is not even considered relevant, because the statement isn't considered to be about truth in the first place.

"Everything can be interpreted in any possible framework" only in the sense that they will interpret your statement in the framework that makes it look the worst. Why will they do so? Because their interpretation of your statement is not about finding truth, but about their assertion of power. That is, these people are operating consistent with their philosophy.

Post reply on HN