Lots of examples of mild offences leading to unfair internet shaming.
What about violentacrez?
Well hey, don't keep us in the darkness, what do you think?
Personally I think outing Brutsch was pointless, and possibly counter-productive.
The laws for privacy are badly in need of updating due to the internet, but in the current political atmosphere the government is not that interested in protecting people's privacy, for their own reasons.
Vigilantism against prominent unsympathetic figures like Brutsch does nothing to protect women from creeps online in the long run, (as has been very much demonstrated during the Gamergate crap), but it does take the pressure off lawmakers.
Christ. Say what you will about SJWs, but MRAs always find a way to take it one step further.
Exactly. This woman was attacked by SJWs and she lost her job and felt traumatized because of shaming her family, etc. Her life was ruined, but I don't think she ever actually worried for her safety with regards to being murdered or anything of that nature.
MRAs and GamerGate types are doxxing SJWs and sending swat teams and kiddie porn and gory photos and death threats at them. SJWs may not be the best type of people, but the MRA/Gamergate movement is terrifying.
EDIT: as for the topic at hand--I don't think it was completely awful that she lost her job. Her job was in Public Relations, she has to be self-aware enough to realize something like that might come across as offensive. The excessive trolling and harassing goes too far, but as far as the job loss, I don't feel all that sorry for her as far as that goes.
I guess it all depends on the level of offensiveness as far as how I feel about public shaming. Horribly racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc things--if you say them, deal with the consequences. Whether people want it to or not, the world is moving forward toward acceptance, and if shaming is the only way to break people out of those bigoted habits, shaming it shall be.
As far as shaming anti-vax types, if you're going to ignore medical science to a point where you don't care whether your actions hurt those around you, I have no problem calling you an idiot to your face.
Last edited by wittynickname; 02-14-2015 at 03:50 PM.
One major propagator of public shaming is of course various internet sites from gawker to buzzfeed to Jezebel. The last of which posted this magnificantly tone deaf response to the NYT article.
That column was ridiculous. Do they seriously think this is a defense of shaming these people?
Quote:
She may have been trying to poke fun at the white privilege bubble, sure I guess, but a dismissive stupid comment, that has to be fewer than 140 characters, doesn't leave any room for context or nuance. Furthermore, the internet didn't know Justine personally.
...
we don't know you or the "witty" point you're trying to make. (Even if I did know you, I'd still tell you to shut the #### up because that #### isn't funny.)
When the online world sees bigoted, racist, misogynist, and intolerant things, we literally have no choice but to take that content at face value.
So accepting that you don't know these people or have any context and therefore might be attributing views to them that they don't really have isn't an option?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gargamel For This Useful Post:
So accepting that you don't know these people or have any context and therefore might be attributing views to them that they don't really have isn't an option?
Yeah.
I also really hate the mentality of talking past that person to crowd and taking isolated comment out of context to a completely different forum.
If you have a problem with something somebody said somewhere, say it to that person in that place. That's an equal reaction to an action. It's not that hard. So for example if somebody says something I think is offensive on a facebook thread or here on CP, I say it to that person in that thread. If you see something offensive in twitter, at least make your reaction a response to that person.
Besides, if you're just looking for a crowd of likeminded people to talk to, you're not actually standing up to that person. I get that sometimes people just want to complain about something without getting into a fight. Fights are tiresome. But then you should not be naming names, at least publicly.
If you're looking for a crowd to do your fighting for you, then you're just being either a coward or a bully, or both.
I think it's a major failing in many opinion tribes that there is too much willingness to put up with terrible behavior of people who happen to have the right opinions. Civility is it's own cause, and one that needs defenders too.
(Besides, and I'm speaking as someone with some insight into how to promote your political views. That kind of unquestioning acceptance tends to attract people who are just as likely to hurt than help the cause. More often than not those people just like to hang, and rarely actually contribute in meaningful ways. They are not the people who will get their workplace to adopt racism-preventing policies for example, or who will stand up to a racist comment made by a lecturer.)
As per Urban Dictionary: A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
It's worth noting that despite it's origins, SJW is not always used as a pejorative, but rather to describe a phenomenon of certain type of internet outrage or just PC policing. And people do use it to describe themselves on occasion, although generally somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
I never read the article, so apologies if I am off point.
If I'm EldrickOnIce, and post something inappropriate on Calgary Puck, who cares - I'm just another Internet ahole who can be warned, suspended or banned to protect the site's public image.
If I'm Bingo, it's entirely different.
I can be an ahole, he can't.
It's my opinion that people who are a public face of something, and aren't smart enough to understand what is and is not appropriate to broadcast, probably should not be in that position anyway.
Harsh but true.
No one deserves to have their life ruined over a single comment. No matter what it is.
Holocaust is fake
Racist comments
Hate Speech
no, doesn't matter, teach them their err. Don't ruin someone's livelihood over one stupid mistake. Sure public faces should be mum but they are humans, and humans make mistakes guaranteed.
The Following User Says Thank You to AcGold For This Useful Post:
The ability of social media/the internet to amplify and make permanent our mistakes is frightening. We're all human and we all make mistakes, and they used to more-or-less limit themselves to people directly associated with us. Now I - completely unconnected to Justine Sacco - know all about some foolish lapse in judgment she had, a lapse in judgment that will follow her forever. That just doesn't seem right.
Yep some of this stuff is getting out of hand. In a nearby town they have one of those pathetic "confessions" fb pages. Long story short, someone was spouting off about someone else and the end result was a B&E and assault with a deadly weapon. The page went down for a week but is now up and running again. Not sure exactly what started it but it was basically the "confession" was basically a SJW essentially slandering someone over alleged drug use/sex for drugs or something of that nature. Anyway the comments started flowing and someone said the wrong thing, and then the boyfriend of the initial target of the post decided to take matters into his own hands and take care of one of the offending posters. Frankly I'm surprised we don't hear of more of this. Backing someone into a corner when they have nothing to lose.... doesn't really seem all that smart. Some of this stuff sounds like it could be the basis to a plot to a revenge themed movie or something. Hopefully, for the sake of these SJW, they don't target the wrong person for a take down because that's where there's real potential for highly escalated, disproportionate response.
Shaming to conform to social norms was maybe is and important part of our evolutionary make up. How do things like racisim, homophobia and others get changed. The first step is usually logic and converstaion but when that fails what are societies options to further in act positive change? Refusing to tolerate and objecting to the offending behaviour is the only way to stop it.
The social norms sword cuts both ways.
Many of the attitudes that SJWs are trying to enforce have only recently become social norms. So if we had the internet in 1960, would it have been cool to shame gays in order to enforce social norms? And some attitudes that are not social norms today, and not on the radar of SJWs, will undoubtedly become social norms in the future.
This is why, despite sharing many of their goals, I despise SJWs. Real social progress will not be made by conformist zealots. Whatever happened to tolerance? I mean the true kind of tolerance where you recognize it's okay for people to have opinions you disagree with profoundly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvp2003
Is that because people will smarten up and (i) stop posting dumb things and/or (ii) stop harassing people who post dumb things? I don't see how something like that can be regulated externally (i.e. by laws or other restrictions).
If every private conversation was broadcast on the internet, all social media platforms would melt down with the outrage and hysteria. People have different opinions. People often make offensive and mean jokes. People argue about stuff. This is human nature, and it will never change.
So the question is whether we should even pretend Facebook, Twitter, etc. are private conversations. Technically, they are not. But a great many people still treat them that way, so that tells you people want to be able to use digital media to have private, group discussions. Maybe we'll develop more sophisticated gradients of private versus public communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
.
I would think a little bit of both. People will definitely realize that their actions on social media have huge consequences and that anonymous is a thin veil easily pierced with the right knowledge and motivation.
But I also think that sooner or later some people will just stop wasting their time on crap like this.
Yeah, you would think there will eventually be a tipping point where half or more of people have disclosed something embarrassing on the internet, and they will simply stop caring that anonymous strangers denounce them for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
.Who has the time to troll people like this? (I realize this is entirely subjective as, apparently, many people have the time) How many social justice warriors on twitter really think they are doing the world a service, and when will they realize that their twitter crusades do nothing. When will all these want-a-be comedians realize their lowest common denominator humour is not attracting the attention they so crave. Sooner or later people will smarten up right?
I wouldn't be so sure about that. There is an effectively limitless supply of deeply unhappy people out there with loads of time on their hands to vent their frustrations on the internet. They will always find an outlet for their bile. The question is whether the rest of us will reach a point where we simply don't give a crap what the self-appointed templars of righteousness have to say.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
"Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for what they write and not allowing this misinterpretation and shaming culture on social media to persist," Judd said. "And by the way I'm pressing charges."
The actor, who is also an advocate for women's rights, added: "The amount of gender violence that I experience is absolutely extraordinary, and a significant part of my day today will be spent filing police reports at home about gender violence that's directed at me on social media."
If you want to lose all faith in humanity just read comments under Youtube videos and American news articles online. I avoid reading these comments like the plague because its so disheartening to know how stupid, angry and uninformed the majority of people seem to be. The world is FULL of self-entitled telephone toughguys and its only getting worse.
Last edited by Forbsey-123; 03-18-2015 at 03:41 PM.
Reason: spelling
Christ. Say what you will about SJWs, but MRAs always find a way to take it one step further.
Don't you get that it's the same exact behaviour, though? It's a mob reaction intended to make the members of the mob feel confident like they're part of something empowering, probably in most cases to overcome some personal insecurities. The SJW stuff along these lines can be equally violent and equally intrusive.
You can say the SJW stuff at least has its heart in the right place - penalizing people for bigotry or whatnot - but that's really just a thin veil to excuse the behaviour and allow people to justify to themselves what is basically the lower-stakes, 21st century version of a lynching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
One major propagator of public shaming is of course various internet sites from gawker to buzzfeed to Jezebel. The last of which posted this magnificantly tone deaf response to the NYT article.
There's a spectrum with this SJW stuff. For example, some of the stuff that gets the mob treatment is honestly held comments or real-world behaviour that is harmful and SHOULD be publicly shamed to some degree. Then there's stuff like an innocuous (if horrendously ill-thought out) joke that costs a woman her livelihood. It's really a matter of scale... and sometimes the appropriate, proportional response is hard to put your finger on. It's ALWAYS hard to control the reaction.
Take Harrison Mooney. Blogger for puck daddy, IM's a bunch of girls with some creepy messages hitting on them. This isn't quite predatory behaviour - he's hitting on girls. But it's also not quite as innocuous as a bad joke, because he doesn't seem to know when to take a hint and you can understand that the girls he's fumblingly hitting on feel legitimately uncomfortable. The response cost him his job and resulted in him being labeled within the hockey internet community as a sexual predator and the face of everything wrong with how female fans are treated in hockey. I dunno, man, that seems like a bit much to this observer for a seemingly normal if awkward guy who just doesn't know how to appropriately engage with the opposite sex... but I bet some people would disagree.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
No one deserves to have their life ruined over a single comment. No matter what it is.
Holocaust is fake
Racist comments
Hate Speech
no, doesn't matter, teach them their err. Don't ruin someone's livelihood over one stupid mistake. Sure public faces should be mum but they are humans, and humans make mistakes guaranteed.
I agree and disagree with you.
On the one hand if the topic is well known, ie: the Holocaust, I think the response should be different than if the topic isn't well known. I find it hard to "forgive" someone that makes inflammatory comments for the sake of making inflammatory comments. If the person is making the comments our of ignorance (lack of knowledge) then educate them.
My question to you is at what point do you no longer forgive/accept mistakes.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
What Oliver is talking about is totally different from the discussion in this thread, which is social justice warriors, rather than online harassment generally.
Incidentally, Oliver's apparently getting quite a bit of sh** for using Anita Sarkeesian in that vid (I don't care, but it was probably dumb to use someone with her baggage to make your point). Also for implying that this is somehow only something women have to deal with and white guys are not targets, which is a fair criticism, though women clearly face a different kind of online abuse that is arguably worse. Still, you don't need to trivialize the harassment faced by people irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc etc etc on the internet.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
