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

The Shaming-Industrial Complex

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 155 posts

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#71

Post by janto »

yunohn wrote: post #64
bavell wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think biological men should be allowed to compete in sports against biological women at a professional level? Is that fair to those women? We can acknowledge and accept trans people without bulldozing millennia of human culture. This has nothing to do with "speech", free or otherwise.

And yet, the commenter I replied to had not mentioned trans-people vs biological men, or anything. They just said men vs women and left it that. See my point?

So how you want the game to work is that you expect me to defend myself against being called bigoted or yield to your ideology. That's how you are propagating your perspective?

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#72

Post by superdisk »

yunohn wrote: post #66
superdisk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And zero debate or criticism? Criticism and responses would be fine. Bloodthirsty attempts at ruining the persons life/career aren't, yet they're extremely common. As others have said, it adds way too much risk to non-anonymous public discourse, where if it happens that something you said, no matter how innocuous, snowballs for whatever reason, you're screwed. So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express…

> Criticism and responses would be fine. That is always the majority of comments. Just like not all tweeters are being cancelled. > So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express opinions online. And yet, here you and I are expressing our opinions and having a discussion. Every single criticism I’ve heard is about policing the people who point out any problematic opinions. Truly ironic! > You could "cancel" l…

> And yet, here you and I are expressing our opinions and having a discussion.

You and I haven't said anything controversial.

> Care to link to any real cases[...]

Nolan Bushnell got cancelled because Atari was allegedly sexist in the 70s, and got an award revoked for it. [1]

There's of course the infamous dongle joke fiasco at PyCon. [2]

James Damore got cancelled for the Google memo, and got fired for it. [3]

These are just a couple examples, and you could argue about whether or not these people are actually in the wrong (for the crime of having the wrong opinion), but they clearly don't deserve mob justice attempting to ruin their careers.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/feb/01/nolan-bushnell...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_...

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#73

Post by dalbasal »

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #59

The article kinda misses a major point: > Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame” I would argue that shaming used to promote your political views is often the most damaging kind of shaming because on top of being the most divisive, it is likely counterproductive, an offputting move that damages your brand and often creates a powerful backlash against it. Now there's some subtlety here. I…

There are elitist traps in here, somewhere.

First, that a lot of people are too uneducated, stupid or uninformed to be responsible for the moral viewpoints. Hence why all blame should be foisted onto the "villainous leaders who manipulated."

Second, that your (our) moral viewpoint is the advanced... and the contrary presumably degenerate or primitive.

That kind of empathy isn't well received. It's condescension. At its worst, it's dehumanising... no moral agency.

Also, take note that they think the same things about you. The reason why you hold your foolish moral viewpoints is because you have been mislead, lied to and manipulated by media, university and Hollywood elites.

Idk if shame is useful, or legitimate as a way of mediating all this. But... I'm quite confident that condescension isn't a helpful posture. Better to start by recognising the actual opposition of viewpoints. Argue in earnest. Etc.

Ie: I'm not mad at you. You're not smart enough to know right from wrong. I'm mad at the people who spoon-fed you your stupid opinions.

It's not actually an empathetic posture, imo.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#74

Post by k__ »

lazyeye wrote: post #14
andrewclunn wrote: post #12

Internet shaming is selectively applied and therefore more a tool of oppression and compliance than valid social signalling. "Politeness" and "political correctness" are entirely distinct, and the internet has no concept of that. Or to use their own language, internet shaming is Californian imperialism, attempting to impose it's values on other cultures.

Exactly. Advocates for diversity love all its superficial forms (skin color, gender, sexual orientation etc) and absolutely loathe the only form that matters...diversity of thought.

Reminds me of something I read recently:

The majority of people who criticize virtue signaling possess no virtues whatsoever.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#75

Post by verisimi »

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #59

The article kinda misses a major point: > Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame” I would argue that shaming used to promote your political views is often the most damaging kind of shaming because on top of being the most divisive, it is likely counterproductive, an offputting move that damages your brand and often creates a powerful backlash against it. Now there's some subtlety here. I…

> Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach.

"Advanced morality" - what's that? Can you teach me?

Afaik, morality begins (and ends) with the Golden Rule 'do unto others'.

"Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)"

"Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#76

Post by spawarotti »

verisimi wrote: post #75
BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #59

The article kinda misses a major point: > Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame” I would argue that shaming used to promote your political views is often the most damaging kind of shaming because on top of being the most divisive, it is likely counterproductive, an offputting move that damages your brand and often creates a powerful backlash against it. Now there's some subtlety here. I…

> Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach. "Advanced morality" - what's that? Can you teach me? Afaik, morality begins (and ends) with the Golden Rule 'do unto others'. "Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)" "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)" https://en.wiki…

What if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#77

Post by rayiner »

yunohn wrote: post #46
lazyeye wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Advocates for diversity love all its superficial forms (skin color, gender, sexual orientation etc) and absolutely loathe the only form that matters...diversity of thought.

> diversity of thought No one is stopped from having diverse thoughts - you can always think whatever you want. But why do you think you have the right to publicly & globally tweet it without anyone responding to it? Are you looking solely for supportive replies? And zero debate or criticism? The irony is that all the people fighting “cancel culture” with their “diverse” thoughts really seem to mainly just have hot-t…

You’re missing the point. Folks aren’t reacting to being called out for “racist and sexist” statements, but California imposing its view of what constitutes those things on a global platform.

“Who gets to define racism” is a critical question: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/

> Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.

Likewise for “sexism.” My mother’s feminist credentials are unassailable: she got a college and graduate school education and had an independent career as a writer in a deeply Muslim country in the 1970s. But by Twitter standards, many of her views would be deemed “sexist” from her sex-negativity to her view of motherhood and its burdens as a defining characteristic of being a woman.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#79

Post by Dracophoenix »

spawarotti wrote: post #76
verisimi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach. "Advanced morality" - what's that? Can you teach me? Afaik, morality begins (and ends) with the Golden Rule 'do unto others'. "Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)" "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)" https://en.wiki…

What if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

That depends on how much value you place on the liberty to make such jokes. Whether you personally disregard the potential feelings of other people is a choice left to you and only you. How other people do feel or are perceived to feel about a subject is not a basis for assigning a moral value.

Re: The Shaming-Industrial Complex

#80

Post by verisimi »

spawarotti wrote: post #76
verisimi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach. "Advanced morality" - what's that? Can you teach me? Afaik, morality begins (and ends) with the Golden Rule 'do unto others'. "Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)" "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)" https://en.wiki…

What if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

If you think others are sensitive about a topic, does it seem right to you to make jokes at their expense?
Post reply on HN