Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Public Shaming

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 2:25:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Brought up in a different thread by YYW. Please make sure I have it down correctly before I continue.

Public Shaming is a social necessity to direct the societal morals and ethics , since laws ought not govern our morals or thoughts. Basically, you technically have the right to do some rather repugnant things and the law should not stop you. Like stand in a public square and spew racist thoughts about Jews (ideally while wearing a sign with at least one typo on it). However, public shaming should be able to step in to persuade people that get in line with society's moral compass.

Please verify before I continue.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:15:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think that sounds very effective lol.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:23:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:25:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Brought up in a different thread by YYW. Please make sure I have it down correctly before I continue.

Public Shaming is a social necessity to direct the societal morals and ethics , since laws ought not govern our morals or thoughts. Basically, you technically have the right to do some rather repugnant things and the law should not stop you. Like stand in a public square and spew racist thoughts about Jews (ideally while wearing a sign with at least one typo on it). However, public shaming should be able to step in to persuade people that get in line with society's moral compass.

Please verify before I continue.

Yay, Ore!
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 3:28:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:25:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Brought up in a different thread by YYW. Please make sure I have it down correctly before I continue.

Public Shaming is a social necessity to direct the societal morals and ethics , since laws ought not govern our morals or thoughts. Basically, you technically have the right to do some rather repugnant things and the law should not stop you. Like stand in a public square and spew racist thoughts about Jews (ideally while wearing a sign with at least one typo on it). However, public shaming should be able to step in to persuade people that get in line with society's moral compass.

Please verify before I continue.

I would tend to agree that legislating morals is not wise or practical. I'm trying to come up with any exception and can't seem to find one now. Shaming is part of the societal structure that has existed... forever. Good, bad, I don't see how it could or would be stopped, so we have the question of its benefit. That is the question, right?

Does it have persuasive power? I would say yes. Would it be naturally collective? Sure. Whatever the prevailing norms of society are would tend to be the acceptable subject matter.

I guess one option is to shun rather than shame. They could mean the same thing in practice, but I would guess the topic is more about actively engaging verbally right? Anything physical (stocks and tomatoes) would be active punishment.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 5:23:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:25:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Brought up in a different thread by YYW. Please make sure I have it down correctly before I continue.

Public Shaming is a social necessity to direct the societal morals and ethics , since laws ought not govern our morals or thoughts. Basically, you technically have the right to do some rather repugnant things and the law should not stop you. Like stand in a public square and spew racist thoughts about Jews (ideally while wearing a sign with at least one typo on it). However, public shaming should be able to step in to persuade people that get in line with society's moral compass.

Please verify before I continue.

Public shaming is kind of a double edged sword, though. I think it's acceptable for society to engage in it, but the problem is that the public -generally- is unfit to make the determination of when public shaming is appropriate. Examples of public shaming used for good (e.g. anti-vaccine people; shaming the Westboro Baptist Church, televangelists, or the 9/11 truthers) are as prolific as public shaming used for the wrong reasons (e.g. any and all incidences of "scarlet letter" type public responses to gay people when they first started to come out; passive aggressive trolls on Reddit; etc.).

In some cases, the public gets it right... but in *many* other cases, the public --because they are largely stupid and easy to manipulate (I wish I wasn't so cynical)-- are often quick to jump on things that they don't have the educational background to understand and this manifestation of stupidity causes real harm (e.g. anti-vaccers; idiots who believe that autism causes teenage boys to be violent menaces to society; etc.).

So, again, it's a double edged sword. Even in the context that I present it---public shame used to disincentivize mothers from aborting their fetuses because they may turn out gay or an undesirable gender--there is tremendous potential to be abused there. It does not take a great imaginative leap to consider how, for example, some "online activist" (I'm thinking like that stupid child that ran the crusade against Stephen Colbert for "ching-chong-ding-dong" satirical skit) could easily misinterpret something ob the basis of limited facts, and ruin a person's life for absolutely no reason other than that the "activist' desired the attention of being the person to air someone else's dirty laundry.

(That is not to say that all of Reddit is bad. I like the website, although I have some pretty sharp criticisms of it. It is only to say that there are some people on some websites like Reddit who could easily ruin a person's life because they posted something stupid that went viral. Depending on the means/context/facts/circumstances/etc. defamation/libel/slander lawsuits might be in order as an appropriate check there.)
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2015 5:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 5:23:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:25:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Brought up in a different thread by YYW. Please make sure I have it down correctly before I continue.

Public Shaming is a social necessity to direct the societal morals and ethics , since laws ought not govern our morals or thoughts. Basically, you technically have the right to do some rather repugnant things and the law should not stop you. Like stand in a public square and spew racist thoughts about Jews (ideally while wearing a sign with at least one typo on it). However, public shaming should be able to step in to persuade people that get in line with society's moral compass.

Please verify before I continue.

Public shaming is kind of a double edged sword, though. I think it's acceptable for society to engage in it, but the problem is that the public -generally- is unfit to make the determination of when public shaming is appropriate. Examples of public shaming used for good (e.g. anti-vaccine people; shaming the Westboro Baptist Church, televangelists, or the 9/11 truthers) are as prolific as public shaming used for the wrong reasons (e.g. any and all incidences of "scarlet letter" type public responses to gay people when they first started to come out; passive aggressive trolls on Reddit; etc.).

In some cases, the public gets it right... but in *many* other cases, the public --because they are largely stupid and easy to manipulate (I wish I wasn't so cynical)-- are often quick to jump on things that they don't have the educational background to understand and this manifestation of stupidity causes real harm (e.g. anti-vaccers; idiots who believe that autism causes teenage boys to be violent menaces to society; etc.).

So, again, it's a double edged sword. Even in the context that I present it---public shame used to disincentivize mothers from aborting their fetuses because they may turn out gay or an undesirable gender--there is tremendous potential to be abused there. It does not take a great imaginative leap to consider how, for example, some "online activist" (I'm thinking like that stupid child that ran the crusade against Stephen Colbert for "ching-chong-ding-dong" satirical skit) could easily misinterpret something ob the basis of limited facts, and ruin a person's life for absolutely no reason other than that the "activist' desired the attention of being the person to air someone else's dirty laundry.

(That is not to say that all of Reddit is bad. I like the website, although I have some pretty sharp criticisms of it. It is only to say that there are some people on some websites like Reddit who could easily ruin a person's life because they posted something stupid that went viral. Depending on the means/context/facts/circumstances/etc. defamation/libel/slander lawsuits might be in order as an appropriate check there.)

The solution to stupidity run amok is thoughtful contradiction. The men and women who pioneered the "coming out" of the LGBT movement were clearly outside the norm in the 70's and ridiculed for it. Society accepted this over time because of the superior argument made.

You could not stop public shaming of homosexuals, that simply would have never worked. In this case, the shaming is in part the downfall of the "bad idea" of exclusion. Straight men and women saw friends and family publicly shamed, and listened instead to the other voice. It worked.

Again, the utility of this seems... well a reasonable question, but not the existence. There simply is no practical way to control this impulse in a society.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:16:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 5:23:59 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/13/2015 2:25:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Brought up in a different thread by YYW. Please make sure I have it down correctly before I continue.

Public Shaming is a social necessity to direct the societal morals and ethics , since laws ought not govern our morals or thoughts. Basically, you technically have the right to do some rather repugnant things and the law should not stop you. Like stand in a public square and spew racist thoughts about Jews (ideally while wearing a sign with at least one typo on it). However, public shaming should be able to step in to persuade people that get in line with society's moral compass.

Please verify before I continue.

Public shaming is kind of a double edged sword, though. I think it's acceptable for society to engage in it, but the problem is that the public -generally- is unfit to make the determination of when public shaming is appropriate. Examples of public shaming used for good (e.g. anti-vaccine people; shaming the Westboro Baptist Church, televangelists, or the 9/11 truthers) are as prolific as public shaming used for the wrong reasons (e.g. any and all incidences of "scarlet letter" type public responses to gay people when they first started to come out; passive aggressive trolls on Reddit; etc.).

In some cases, the public gets it right... but in *many* other cases, the public --because they are largely stupid and easy to manipulate (I wish I wasn't so cynical)-- are often quick to jump on things that they don't have the educational background to understand and this manifestation of stupidity causes real harm (e.g. anti-vaccers; idiots who believe that autism causes teenage boys to be violent menaces to society; etc.).

So, again, it's a double edged sword. Even in the context that I present it---public shame used to disincentivize mothers from aborting their fetuses because they may turn out gay or an undesirable gender--there is tremendous potential to be abused there. It does not take a great imaginative leap to consider how, for example, some "online activist" (I'm thinking like that stupid child that ran the crusade against Stephen Colbert for "ching-chong-ding-dong" satirical skit) could easily misinterpret something ob the basis of limited facts, and ruin a person's life for absolutely no reason other than that the "activist' desired the attention of being the person to air someone else's dirty laundry.

(That is not to say that all of Reddit is bad. I like the website, although I have some pretty sharp criticisms of it. It is only to say that there are some people on some websites like Reddit who could easily ruin a person's life because they posted something stupid that went viral. Depending on the means/context/facts/circumstances/etc. defamation/libel/slander lawsuits might be in order as an appropriate check there.)

It sounds like the "right" use and "wrong" use are dependent upon your personal opinions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:27:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:16:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It sounds like the "right" use and "wrong" use are dependent upon your personal opinions.

Yes, which is why it's a double edged sword. But when we're talking about things like "social norms" --e.g. the conditions under which the seeking of an abortion is a morally acceptable activity-- that's not going to be based on objective anything. But the "personal opinion" objection (which is what you're suggesting at) is at once well taken, but not entirely on point, because everything in this realm is subjective. The implication, thus, is that if no one could respond to stuff that was not objective, no one could ever judge anyone else for anything. Laws, norms and social order itself thereupon starts to fall apart.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:31:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 5:39:54 PM, TBR wrote:
The solution to stupidity run amok is thoughtful contradiction. The men and women who pioneered the "coming out" of the LGBT movement were clearly outside the norm in the 70's and ridiculed for it. Society accepted this over time because of the superior argument made.

Maybe, if by "thoughtful contradiction" you mean "patient progress and education through the generation of empathy based experiences." More or less, the reason the gay rights movement was successful is because the public was exposed to homosexuality in a way that demystified it and repudiated the idiotic myths surrounding it promulgated by the church and the field of mental health in the 1930s-1960s.

You could not stop public shaming of homosexuals, that simply would have never worked. In this case, the shaming is in part the downfall of the "bad idea" of exclusion. Straight men and women saw friends and family publicly shamed, and listened instead to the other voice. It worked.

The reason they listened is because there was a concerted effort by lots of people over generations to redefine what homosexuality meant in the popular collective consciousness.

Again, the utility of this seems... well a reasonable question, but not the existence. There simply is no practical way to control this impulse in a society.

Yeah there is... but it's seriously hard. It requires people --like me-- subtly influencing popular opinion. But, there's a seriously huge ethical question in that.

Is manipulating a body of people to do the right thing an ethical thing to do? Perhaps, but it's in an area of moral gray.
Tsar of DDO
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:31:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Imagine a system where criminals, as part of their sentence, were given a temporary tattoo on their forehead stating their crime. "I robbed a store" "I mugged a man", ect.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:55:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:27:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:16:21 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
It sounds like the "right" use and "wrong" use are dependent upon your personal opinions.

Yes, which is why it's a double edged sword. But when we're talking about things like "social norms" --e.g. the conditions under which the seeking of an abortion is a morally acceptable activity-- that's not going to be based on objective anything. But the "personal opinion" objection (which is what you're suggesting at) is at once well taken, but not entirely on point, because everything in this realm is subjective. The implication, thus, is that if no one could respond to stuff that was not objective, no one could ever judge anyone else for anything. Laws, norms and social order itself thereupon starts to fall apart.

So when you state "__________ is wrong" what you mean is "___________ is wrong in my subjective opinion."

So your claims of shaming women who may choose to abort a gay fetus as acceptable and good have no greater value than someone else who claims that shaming gay children until they commit suicide is acceptable and good.

Other then you can shame them for that view and they can shame you for your view and you just hope that your side is bigger. Though we can see in today's world that it doesn't take a majority to create public shaming, rather just a vocal minority.

Which is why even when most children and young adults are supportive of gays, a small group of douches can pressure someone into killing themselves. Is this an acceptable cost of supporting public shaming as a policy?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:03:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:55:15 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So when you state "__________ is wrong" what you mean is "___________ is wrong in my subjective opinion."

Yes, and no. And I realize that I am directly contradicting myself in saying that; but a dogmatic defense of objective morality is all there is to ground morality objectively. That's all that can be done. Whenever I am saying something that is not falsifiable (like, the sun rises in the east) or a verifiable statement about the world, it's not a fact. There are only facts and non-factual statements. That latter category may be moral views, impressions, reactions, opinions, perspectives, ruminations, pontifications, etc. But it's not a factual statement to say that anything is or is not moral. So, the nature of the claim implies that it's an opinion.

But, the fact that something is an opinion does not make it devoid of value; and it does not mean that all opinions are equally valuable. To the contrary, many people have incredibly stupid opinions. (There are ways to know if an opinion is stupid; e.g. an opinion is stupid if it leads to more harm than good, on balance, etc.) Many people hold opinions that add value to society, and make our world a better place to live in. That's another standard. The metric, therefore, for what makes an opinion of good and worthwhile value, is whether it is consistent with making the world we share a better place.

So your claims of shaming women who may choose to abort a gay fetus as acceptable and good have no greater value than someone else who claims that shaming gay children until they commit suicide is acceptable and good.

No. See the above.

Other then you can shame them for that view and they can shame you for your view and you just hope that your side is bigger. Though we can see in today's world that it doesn't take a majority to create public shaming, rather just a vocal minority.

No. See the above.

Which is why even when most children and young adults are supportive of gays, a small group of douches can pressure someone into killing themselves. Is this an acceptable cost of supporting public shaming as a policy?

No. See the above.
Tsar of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:10:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:03:27 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/14/2015 2:55:15 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So when you state "__________ is wrong" what you mean is "___________ is wrong in my subjective opinion."

Yes, and no. And I realize that I am directly contradicting myself in saying that; but a dogmatic defense of objective morality is all there is to ground morality objectively. That's all that can be done. Whenever I am saying something that is not falsifiable (like, the sun rises in the east) or a verifiable statement about the world, it's not a fact. There are only facts and non-factual statements. That latter category may be moral views, impressions, reactions, opinions, perspectives, ruminations, pontifications, etc. But it's not a factual statement to say that anything is or is not moral. So, the nature of the claim implies that it's an opinion.

But, the fact that something is an opinion does not make it devoid of value; and it does not mean that all opinions are equally valuable. To the contrary, many people have incredibly stupid opinions. (There are ways to know if an opinion is stupid; e.g. an opinion is stupid if it leads to more harm than good, on balance, etc.) Many people hold opinions that add value to society, and make our world a better place to live in. That's another standard. The metric, therefore, for what makes an opinion of good and worthwhile value, is whether it is consistent with making the world we share a better place.

So your claims of shaming women who may choose to abort a gay fetus as acceptable and good have no greater value than someone else who claims that shaming gay children until they commit suicide is acceptable and good.

No. See the above.

Other then you can shame them for that view and they can shame you for your view and you just hope that your side is bigger. Though we can see in today's world that it doesn't take a majority to create public shaming, rather just a vocal minority.

No. See the above.

Which is why even when most children and young adults are supportive of gays, a small group of douches can pressure someone into killing themselves. Is this an acceptable cost of supporting public shaming as a policy?

No. See the above.

More harm than good, is once again subjective, so that is basically saying that things will have different value to different people (I think this should be obvious on its own), what is "harmful" in one person's opinion may be "beneficial" in another person's opinion.

But if you're gonna argue that soceity should follow public shaming, you should accept the result even if it doesn't go your way. Much like I accept the rules of a game even if that means I may lose the game.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:17:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:10:53 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
More harm than good, is once again subjective, so that is basically saying that things will have different value to different people (I think this should be obvious on its own), what is "harmful" in one person's opinion may be "beneficial" in another person's opinion.

Of course.

But if you're gonna argue that soceity should follow public shaming, you should accept the result even if it doesn't go your way. Much like I accept the rules of a game even if that means I may lose the game.

Let's be clear so that you don't over state what I'm saying: I am not saying that public shaming is always an acceptable thing to do, or even an acceptable thing to do for most people in most cases. I'm saying that in some cases, public shaming may fill the gap between what is permissible for government to regulate and what it should not, to get individuals to do what they ought to do.

But I am totally conscious of the potentiality for abuse. Public shaming in some contexts (e.g. among teenagers) is a universally bad thing, because so few teenagers (read: not a majority) have the moral capacity to delineate between causes which they could be reasonably morally outraged over (e.g. teenagers who join ISIS) and things which they have no business criticizing people about (e.g. the thigh gap thing, which might be the stupidest internet phenomenon I have ever seen).
Tsar of DDO
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:18:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The weird thing is that public shaming doesn't work when people are anonymous online. Like, I was thinking about Michael Brutsch and what I big deal it was when he was outed. But really, what's the difference? When he was violentacrez, he was some guy posting pictures of underage girls, and when he's Michael Brutsch he's some guy posting pictures of underage girls. I suppose with the second one, he lost his job. So, it's like, public shaming only works if it's public. If YYW wants to shame people out of having selective abortions, for example, it will only work if abortions are public events. It's easily avoided by having them private and anonymous, like brothels.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:18:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/13/2015 2:25:54 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Brought up in a different thread by YYW. Please make sure I have it down correctly before I continue.

Public Shaming is a social necessity to direct the societal morals and ethics , since laws ought not govern our morals or thoughts. Basically, you technically have the right to do some rather repugnant things and the law should not stop you. Like stand in a public square and spew racist thoughts about Jews (ideally while wearing a sign with at least one typo on it). However, public shaming should be able to step in to persuade people that get in line with society's moral compass.

Please verify before I continue.

Theoretically speaking, if the public actually possessed a well-articulated and justified moral construct then perhaps your idea may have some standing....

But what is right and wrong is only known and affirmed by formal, objective, and procedural analysis of the issue at hand. This ought to occur in our courts for the egregious offenses, and in civil parlance for the mild. The judgment shouldn't just be spewed into the air arbitrarily.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 2:53:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:18:14 AM, Hoppi wrote:
The weird thing is that public shaming doesn't work when people are anonymous online. Like, I was thinking about Michael Brutsch and what I big deal it was when he was outed. But really, what's the difference? When he was violentacrez, he was some guy posting pictures of underage girls, and when he's Michael Brutsch he's some guy posting pictures of underage girls. I suppose with the second one, he lost his job. So, it's like, public shaming only works if it's public. If YYW wants to shame people out of having selective abortions, for example, it will only work if abortions are public events. It's easily avoided by having them private and anonymous, like brothels.

I think you're considering "public shaming" to exist only on the internet or in the media, which is wrong. Those are two mediums by which public shaming can occur; not the finite limit of means, as your post seems to suggest.

Your point that the public must be *aware* of an incident to publicly shame someone is more or less obvious, but it misses the point. Yes, it is indeed the case that abortions are private affairs. It is also the case that people often do not keep the private events of their life private (e.g. they share them, talk about them on Reddit, talk about them with friends, etc.).

Likewise, public shaming need not take place in every incidence of an abortion sought for the reasons I indicated. It just has to happen every so often... enough for people among the general public who may be, a member of which may at some point, pregnant with a fetus that may, for example, turn out to be gay or a gender not preferable to that individual, to get a general idea that this kind of thing is wrong. That's it.

I thought this (by "this" I mean "the dynamic of how public shaming works") was clear. Perhaps I was wrong in that regard.
Tsar of DDO
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 10:13:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 2:31:53 AM, thett3 wrote:
Imagine a system where criminals, as part of their sentence, were given a temporary tattoo on their forehead stating their crime. "I robbed a store" "I mugged a man", ect.

https://www.youtube.com...

One of the best Twilight Zone episodes ever!