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

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#51

Post by dfxm12 »

ghaff wrote: post #11
alexpetralia wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need some sort of exponential weighted moving average function: weight most recent the most.

It's not just time-based though. Most of us can probably recall recent examples where someone did or said something stupid or in poor taste. But they didn't deserve to lose their job or even had their career badly damaged because that was the easiest way for some company to placate the Internet mob.

Depends what their job is, no? As an example, anonymous blue collar workers shouldn't lose their jobs (and they rarely do). Politicians should maybe have to face more consequences (and they rarely do). Entertainment stars are somewhere in the middle, but for some reason seem to get the most attention.

Now, "placate the Internet mob" is a bit disingenuous here. What's the Internet mob going to do if not placated? Tweet more? Oh no. They don't have any real power. Let's take Roseanne as an example. An Internet mob didn't take her show off the air. ABC execs did. You can blame tweets all you want, but it was ultimately up to ABC. Did they do it because of the tweets? Were they looking for one last straw? They have to answer to that. Did this badly damage Roseanne's career? Listen to Joe Rogan talk to Roseanne about this. He's trying his hardest to lead her into blaming that "Internet mob" for badly damaging her career, but all she says is, "I've got a new tour already lined up for 2019 and I've been spending more time in Hawaii with my son". Does that sound so bad?

Kevin Hart has 3 movies coming out this year. Louis CK has been performing at clubs. Aziz Ansari is on tour. It's hard to find someone who was badly damaged by an Internet mob...

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#52

Post by dfxm12 »

LiquidSky wrote: post #44
pjc50 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I gotta wonder if that's why he was fired by the Academy. It doesn't make sense that they are afraid of controversy in light of some of the recent people who they honored, like Casey Affleck & Mel Gibson.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#54

Post by scottlocklin »

gotocake wrote: post #49
_bxg1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

You should read an older history of this series of events; past views of the inquisition were vastly different than the present view. For a long time, it was seen as a humane thing due to their use of an actual legal process rather than people and local strong men burning heretics (who were probably mostly "heretics") at random. In other words, the inquisition was a Church reform designed to mitigate "private sector" witch hunters who were causing political upheaval. The use of standards of evidence by people like Bernard Gui (who wrote a manual on the subject) was a big innovation, as silly as it might seem today.

My historical point of comparison is the events leading up to the various religious wars. The protestant reformation unleashed historical and cultural forces in the same way the present slow motion destruction of the last 100 years of political consensus.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#56

Post by gotocake »

scottlocklin wrote: post #54
gotocake wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You should read an older history of this series of events; past views of the inquisition were vastly different than the present view. For a long time, it was seen as a humane thing due to their use of an actual legal process rather than people and local strong men burning heretics (who were probably mostly "heretics") at random. In other words, the inquisition was a Church reform designed to mitigate "private sector"…

No, it’s not silly, just a testament to how screwed up the time period in question was. Just to add to what you’re saying, did you know that the inquisition was only allowed a single torture session? Of course they got around that by “pausing” the session and resuming endlessly. Still the ideas in the Inquisition, putting aside its aims and practices, were interestint for the time. So “big innovation” isn’t silly, although I admit it’s an interesting perspective not usually taken.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#57

Post by OpenBSD-supreme »

Nasrudith wrote: post #24
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…

I think the true answer is that we need to apply nuance and context to things instead of emotional knee-jerking. At the same time we should judge for past in both positive and negative ways. If they supported apartheid for fear of communism then you certainly are right to question their moral and practical judgment (even accepting the fear the action is counterproductively shoving the oppressed to the arms of the ene…

[dead]

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#58

Post by AlwaysRock »

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?

Kevin Hart and James Gunn are two big examples from the last year or two.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#59

Post by explainplease »

taneq wrote: post #21
explainplease wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your distinctions between shame and censure are arbitrary and meaningless. e.g.: Censure: "You shouldn't have done that." Shaming: "You shouldn't have done that. Shame on you." The point is the same. If an action is deservedly shameful, then so be it. Shame that brings positive change is not a bad thing; it is a natural social consequence. The problem is lack of forgiveness even after repentance. How can one's debt t…

> The point is the same. If an action is deservedly shameful, then so be it. The point is different because censure (as we're using it here) judges the action but shaming judges the person . Censure: "That thing that you did was bad." Shaming: "You are a bad person for doing that thing."

No, you are arbitrarily deciding that "shaming judges the person," and that shaming means, "You are a bad person." That's what you think it means. You do not get to decide what "shaming" means to everyone, and it's not right for you to tell others what "shaming" means to them.

Besides that, even if one thinks that shaming does "judge the person," that's not necessarily bad, either, because rightful shame can lead to changed behaviors, which is good for the person and for society as a whole. However, this only works as long as forgiveness is available to those who change.

The problem our society currently has is that forgiveness is often denied, even after repentance. The judgments of the court of public opinion are essentially permanent, which is not healthy. And it's doubly bad when relatively old words and actions can be cited as a reason for judgment and outrage today.

Re: The Industrial Revolution of Shame

#60

Post by explainplease »

dexen wrote: post #33
explainplease wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your distinctions between shame and censure are arbitrary and meaningless. e.g.: Censure: "You shouldn't have done that." Shaming: "You shouldn't have done that. Shame on you." The point is the same. If an action is deservedly shameful, then so be it. Shame that brings positive change is not a bad thing; it is a natural social consequence. The problem is lack of forgiveness even after repentance. How can one's debt t…

>The problem is lack of forgiveness even after repentance If anything, repentance leads to more and longer lasting stigma. The repentant person will most likely get excluded from the polite society - which usually means from any high-profile business and social setting. Meanwhile standing staunchly by one's actions (or strong denial) - even better if coupled with some pushback - tends to create a counter-narrative, w…

Yes, that's exactly my point: forgiveness is withheld, even after repentance. Admitting guilt is double-punished, and doubling-down is comparatively rewarded.
Post reply on HN