Scrutable

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:12 pm

Fair enough. I wasn't really attempting to rehash old arguments.

Then you expressed yourself unbelievably poorly

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:38 pm

Does anyone have any information on the effectiveness of shaming people like this? I've had a very quick look in Google Scholar but I couldn't find anything particularly relevant.

I read this last year https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/13/th ... -offender/

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:30 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:38 pm

Does anyone have any information on the effectiveness of shaming people like this? I've had a very quick look in Google Scholar but I couldn't find anything particularly relevant.

I read this last year https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/13/th ... -offender/

That's interesting, thanks . I'm curious about the Bristol Post's approach because so much shaming, certainly the type in your link, seems to involve directly shaming the person by commenting on their posts. Whereas the Post has printed screenshots of several different people. The screenshots mean that people have to go and seek them out to reply directly, and looking at several people rather than targetting one individual may diffuse any ire they get in response, and also make it clearer to readers that this is about a pattern of behaviour rather than one person overstepping what is considered acceptable.

tom p wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 4:12 pm

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:12 pm

Fair enough. I wasn't really attempting to rehash old arguments.

Then you expressed yourself unbelievably poorly

I disagree, it was very clear his point was like “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” as he pointed out in the bit you cut out. I think snooze expressed himself pretty well and has responded very well to you and others making weird assumptions about what he wrote.

FWIW, my recollection of "dead in a ditch" is that Johnson said he'd rather be dead in a ditch than apply for another extension and several (including me) said we find his terms acceptable.

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 7:30 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:38 pm

Does anyone have any information on the effectiveness of shaming people like this? I've had a very quick look in Google Scholar but I couldn't find anything particularly relevant.

I read this last year https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/11/13/th ... -offender/

Nice thanks! Not that I should be judging the validly of science studies in this way, but I can definitely relate to the combination of increased sympathy and feeling that you should speak out more.

JQH wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 04, 2020 12:21 pm

FWIW, my recollection of "dead in a ditch" is that Johnson said he'd rather be dead in a ditch than apply for another extension and several (including me) said we find his terms acceptable.

And FWIW I am, as I have already said, a bit puzzled as to why we have started using comments about Johnson as a point of reference. If you were going to wish someone's death then he is probably as close to fair game as you might get (if you think anyone is fair game). But he is not the only person whose death has been wished on the internet by people of a similar political orientation to us (nor the only person for whom a ditch has been suggested as a final resting place).

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:39 pm

JQH wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 04, 2020 12:21 pm

FWIW, my recollection of "dead in a ditch" is that Johnson said he'd rather be dead in a ditch than apply for another extension and several (including me) said we find his terms acceptable.

And FWIW I am, as I have already said, a bit puzzled as to why we have started using comments about Johnson as a point of reference. If you were going to wish someone's death then he is probably as close to fair game as you might get (if you think anyone is fair game). But he is not the only person whose death has been wished on the internet, nor the only person for whom a ditch has been suggested as a final resting place.

It may be because Johnson dead in a ditch is used as an example of acceptable speech in the forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41

Though of course you all know that as you look at the rules every morning.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:42 pm

Though of course you all know that as you look at the rules every morning.

I genuinely was looking at the forum rules this morning. So either you have hacked into my computer or you are, in real life, Mrs. Snooze. I am not sure which possibility is more disturbing.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:50 pm

Some people are immune from social embarrassment. Like a spin-off from narcissistic personality disorder - they can undergo public humiliation yet not feel it. They just carry on without a scratch on their feelings.

I suspect a lot of the people named and shamed simply won't have any reaction.

It's the reverse of virtue signalling. In effect it says to the world "I am rich and powerful and privileged enough to be able to say this horrible thing and it won't affect me because I am rich and etc."

It's a peacock's tail, a suit of Swabian armour or a gold plated Lambo; it says look at the size of my f.cking balls*, it's an advertisement of unassailable social standing, a big f.ck you to everyone else.

*OK so not Katie Hopkins but the principle stands.

These, in this case in the Bristol Post, are not rich. Well, they don't appear to be.
They posted this abuse on a public Facebook page using their public profiles. It's not exactly that much different than if they shouted it in the street. And in those circumstances I don't see that there's any reason not to publicly announce who they are. Whether or not they then reflect on their behaviour is another thing. They certainly wouldn't have done so if not called out, they would have been had tacit reinforcement that their behaviour was acceptable.

A form of wolf whistling? There, the whistler is intending it not as a communication to the woman, but to the men around him. It's saying "I'm an alpha male, I've got the guts to harass and I don't give a sh.t for disapproval". It's a pretence at being rich in terms of self esteem, rich in confidence, bigness of character, rather than rich in £.

Globally, practically everybody in the UK is rich in £, in the sense that they live in a society able to shield them from the worst impacts of climate change (while continuing to contribute to its exacerbation).

The people currently at risk or actually dying are in the poor countries of the global south.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:16 am

Globally, practically everybody in the UK is rich in £, in the sense that they live in a society able to shield them from the worst impacts of climate change (while continuing to contribute to its exacerbation).

The people currently at risk or actually dying are in the poor countries of the global south.

Yes, indeed.

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:42 am

A form of wolf whistling? There, the whistler is intending it not as a communication to the woman, but to the men around him. It's saying "I'm an alpha male, I've got the guts to harass and I don't give a sh.t for disapproval". It's a pretence at being rich in terms of self esteem, rich in confidence, bigness of character, rather than rich in £.

Are you sure this is true of all wolf whistling? Anyway, your mention of it caused me to look up the origin of it, which is a bit interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-whistling

lpm wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:42 am

A form of wolf whistling? There, the whistler is intending it not as a communication to the woman, but to the men around him. It's saying "I'm an alpha male, I've got the guts to harass and I don't give a sh.t for disapproval". It's a pretence at being rich in terms of self esteem, rich in confidence, bigness of character, rather than rich in £.

Ah sort of a wolf dog-whistle then?

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:58 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:42 pm

Though of course you all know that as you look at the rules every morning.

I genuinely was looking at the forum rules this morning. So either you have hacked into my computer or you are, in real life, Mrs. Snooze. I am not sure which possibility is more disturbing.

I promise that I'm not in fact your wife. Nor have I hacked your computer. There must be another explanation.

Is'nt the hefty implement your avatar carries a powerful hacking tool?

bmforre wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:26 am

Is'nt the hefty implement your avatar carries a powerful hacking tool?

An elegant weapon for a more civilized age.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:38 pm

Does anyone have any information on the effectiveness of shaming people like this? I've had a very quick look in Google Scholar but I couldn't find anything particularly relevant.

I'd like to know that too.

I'm trying to avoid any kind of cognitive bias in thinking about who it's OK to publicly shame but I do think that adult politicians and public figures are fair game. They always have been in whatever media existed at the time. Not that this makes it right but strongly worded dissent or disapproval or even mockery comes with the territory. Think about the sometimes quite vicious cartoons about public figures in the 18th century, eg the work of Gillray, Rowlandson and Cruikshank.

I'm uneasy but not totally against ad hom comments about this sort of person in some contexts but would draw the line at punching down for sure. Any kind of sexism, racism, homophobia etc is separate from ad homs in my mind.

When adult males start picking on teenage girls I do get pretty feisty and protective though. I hope that the Bristol incident will give people pause for thought before posting and that the offenders have to have some serious conversations about their behaviour at work and socially. I doubt that this will affect the larger world of vile people posting vileness though.

Putting someone in the stocks and chucking rotten food at them is an old tradition to highlight unacceptable behaviour in a community. Is the Bristol incident a modern version of this?

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:10 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:38 pm

Does anyone have any information on the effectiveness of shaming people like this? I've had a very quick look in Google Scholar but I couldn't find anything particularly relevant.

I'd like to know that too.

It apparently can have a profound impact. Jon Ronson wrote a book called So You've Been Publicly Shamed a few years back about online shamings. I read some reviews years ago, but haven't read the book.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:13 pm

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:10 pm

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:38 pm

Does anyone have any information on the effectiveness of shaming people like this? I've had a very quick look in Google Scholar but I couldn't find anything particularly relevant.

I'd like to know that too.

It apparently can have a profound impact. Jon Ronson wrote a book called So You've Been Publicly Shamed a few years back about online shamings. I read some reviews years ago, but haven't read the book.

I have actually read it. It sort of depended on the target for me. There was one part that he received some criticism for, which was the Adria Richards story. She called out some men for making sexual jokes at a conference, resulting in one of them losing his job. The outrage then swung the other way, leading to Richards losing her job. The man quickly got another job. She did not. Ronson seemed much less sympathetic to her, which was a bit odd really.

There was some interesting stuff in there about reputation management, ie people creating lots of fake profiles and sites to dilute the results so that people can get away from their bad press.

At a nearby primary school, the police did a thing where they pulled over cars speeding past the school.

They didn't lecture or fine the drivers. They got the drivers out their cars and in front of the children, who asked them questions about why they were speeding.

Quite a lot of commentators felt the punishment was excessive, that it was far too humiliating to be hauled in front of children relative to the usual fines and courses and 3 points on the licence. But I bet it was effective.

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:25 pm

At a nearby primary school, the police did a thing where they pulled over cars speeding past the school.

They didn't lecture or fine the drivers. They got the drivers out their cars and in front of the children, who asked them questions about why they were speeding.

Quite a lot of commentators felt the punishment was excessive, that it was far too humiliating to be hauled in front of children relative to the usual fines and courses and 3 points on the licence. But I bet it was effective.

'Goodness me, I didn't expect my decision to put children's lives at risk to have consequences.'

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:25 pm

At a nearby primary school, the police did a thing where they pulled over cars speeding past the school.

They didn't lecture or fine the drivers. They got the drivers out their cars and in front of the children, who asked them questions about why they were speeding.

Quite a lot of commentators felt the punishment was excessive, that it was far too humiliating to be hauled in front of children relative to the usual fines and courses and 3 points on the licence. But I bet it was effective.

Oh no, humiliating adults in front of children. More of this sort of thing would be excellent.

It's like the posters in London Underground with photos of kids and comments about how upset their parents get when they're abused at work on the Tube. Charities have long known that personalising stories and seeing the consequences of your actions gets better results - in a positive way. So why not do it for harmful behaviour too?