hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

Does shaming actually have salutary political effects? I remember reading psychology studies that separated shame from guilt, and noted that the former -- because it deals with how people feel about themselves as people rather than their actions -- almost always leads to antisocial outcomes. Guilt is more useful, and some level of it is necessary for moral growth.

Maybe we don't care about Lerher's growth as a human, but I see no reason to totally discount the kid in the video and hope that he feels "called out" before his peers. This is more likely to produce defensiveness than guilt. It would have been better if j0rdan tracked down the kid and sent him a private message about his concerns.

Shaming might affect behaviors -- make people more cautious -- but I think those benefits could come at the expense of more serious damage to the shamed and those afraid of being shamed.

Felt this way with Lena Dunham too, and almost every case like this that comes up.

funny how we're having a conversation about gawker publicly shaming people and nobody has brought up adrien chen's doxxing of violentacrez yet

Violentacrez was committing criminal breaches of privacy. It feels different.

Felt this way with Lena Dunham too, and almost every case like this that comes up.

― Treeship, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:15 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i otoh told lena nobody had ever made me feel this way before

i'm getting kinda tired of seeing the word "shame" over and over as the all-encompassing word for what happens when someone gets caught out there with a bad tweet or unflattering picture or whatever. there's probably no single word that fits better as an all-purpose shorthand for book titles and stuff, but to me it conjures this Scarlet Letter moral judgment vibe that doesn't really apply to a lot of these situations, which are often more about point-and-laugh derision or just fed-up anger at people still saying evil racist shit or whatever. SOMETIMES these kinds of internet backlashes involve fat-shaming or slut-shaming or something like that, but i dunno if you'd call it dumb-shaming or inarticulate-shaming when someone fires off a shitty offensive tweet or whatever.

Agree, suggest new word 'treesh', as in that dude was publicly treeshed

if only people doing the shaming (for all these definitions of shaming) would be more chill

brb gonna reach out privately and express serious concerns about offensive #content i see on the web

inarticulate shaming is kinda fucked up tho

dir sirs;

i respectfully find your content outrageous and offensive. plz stop i guess or something.

sincerely,
a shamer

It would have been better if j0rdan tracked down the kid and sent him a private message about his concerns.

― Treeship, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:11 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is my favorite post. good shit

ronson goes to bat for jonah lehrer and mike daisey, but is skeptical of adria richards

fwiw he expresses some scepticism about some of the arguments Richards makes but this is how the section on donglegate concludes

“Give me an example,” I said. “So you’re in your new workplace [Hank was offered another job right away] and you’re talking to a female developer. In what way do you act differently towards her?’

“Well,” Hank said, “we don’t have any female developers at the place I’m working at now. So.”

“You’ve got a new job now, right?” I said to Adria.

“No,” she said.

Later, I saw another photograph Adria happened to take that day at the conference. It was an audience shot. A sea of men – practically only men – stretching to the horizon.

***

the worst is when ppl publicly shame cops for gunning down unarmed black men in the streets i mean hello ever heard of being polite smh

(that is from an extract in the Guardian, I guess the version in the book might be different? idk http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/21/internet-shaming-lindsey-stone-jon-ronson xp)

xp i don't think j0rdan would have done that. i just think if he was really interested in getting the kid to know that what he said was not OK, that would be the way to do it.

"making an example" of someone is always a bad look and inherently unfair, i feel like this is just obvious

jeez guys cd you not have just covered up his head in the video with the trollface or sump'n?

xp i don't think j0rdan would have done that. i just think if he was really interested in getting the kid to know that what he said was not OK, that would be the way to do it.

"making an example" of someone is always a bad look and inherently unfair, i feel like this is just obvious

― Treeship, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:29 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is it possible that wasn't jordan's primary goal

wldve been cooler if those sunglasses dropped down and then DEAL WITH IT i love memes

dear sir....

http://boxofchocolates29.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/snoopy_typewriter.gif

if jordan really wanted to save his soul, he would have taken the kid to church, synagogue or mosque

inarticulate shaming is kinda fucked up tho

― deej loaf (D-40), Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:26 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i dunno, depends on the context! a lot of times people just make a typo or are horrible spellers. if i'm going to hell for finding it funny that French Montana said "alphet" instead of "outfit," so be it. i guess the "like such as South Africa" pageant girl was the object of a lot of sexism over that whole thing, but anybody could've said that on TV and it would've gone viral.

xp it obviously wasn't his goal. the goal was entertainment at another person's expense, which is obviously shitty. but it's framed disingenuously as this "punching up" anti-racist gesture, which is why people are able to enjoy it without feeling guilty

im able to enjoy it because i accidentally clicked on buzzfeeds soul removal button

who cares what you think his goal was. what is the effect xp

won't someone think of the idiot white youths

the worst is when ppl publicly shame cops for gunning down unarmed black men in the streets i mean hello ever heard of being polite smh

― lag∞n, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:28 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

btw im very srs about this, the anti police violence twitter/etc ppl are very much part of the shaming movement and are m/l solely responsible for making/sustaining police murders a media story and therefor shd be considered when analyzing shaming culture

a lot of ppl are gonna want to leave them out because its so serious and righteous which will just go to show you the sort of willful cherry picking thats going on in this argument

otm

honestly i thought this thread couldn't get grosser but i should never underestimate ilx's ability to trivialize tragedies for the sake of a snarky joke

high hauteur even for you mordy

its too bad we don't know a publication that would publish ideas about stuff that no one else has really tackled

yes i'm very prideful that i don't make jokes about black kids getting shot by the police.

the joke is not about the black kids u willfully obtuse child

smells like someone's getting high on their own dudgeon in here

don't appreciate this dudgeon shaming

some private citizen kid said the n-word at a drake concert. gawker shamed him for doing it. making a sarcastic joke about people shaming the police to demonstrate (ineptly) yr argument that some ppl (the police and i guess consequently this kid) should be shamed is trivializing actual tragedies perpetrated by the police by comparing it to a story where no one was hurt.

but hey maybe you're shooting for a job at gawker so don't let me get in the way

that is a pretty creative interpretation of the text imho

Mordy, I think I can break this down. What's happening here is that a bunch of sociopaths are latching onto a legitimate practice to give their dickhead behaviors a socially acceptable cover. That's why it doesn't feel right.

who is the bunch of sociopaths

first they came for the white kids who sang the n-word at a drake show, and i did nothing

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.

comes from here

some private citizen kid said the n-word at a drake concert. gawker shamed him for doing it. making a sarcastic joke about people shaming the police to demonstrate (ineptly) yr argument that some ppl (the police and i guess consequently this kid) should be shamed is trivializing actual tragedies perpetrated by the police by comparing it to a story where no one was hurt.

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:54 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

youre making a specific connection to the gawker story that does not exist, the point of the post was to demonstrate that there are very non real stakes in online shaming thatre going willfully unacknowledged by the critics, those critics are obvs the target of the joke, you are plenty smart enough to understand this but are blinded by yr need to constantly claw for high ground, go fuck yrself

lmao american journalism

"very real stakes" obvs

your point was that there are legitimate cases of shaming? who exactly do you think is disagreeing w/ you? do u think ronson's book is about not shaming mass murderers, or serial killers, or rogue police, or nazis, or whatever? do you think anyone might think that it is?

also i think you're a really cool guy, lag00n, but i think your hostility here might be less about me and more about whatever has compelled you defend what was a pretty shitty blog post from an always often cool ilxor who works for a terrible media source

anyway, whatever. that's it for me on this one.

your point was that there are legitimate cases of shaming? who exactly do you think is disagreeing w/ you? do u think ronson's book is about not shaming mass murderers, or serial killers, or rogue police, or nazis, or whatever? do you think anyone might think that it is?

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 15, 2015 2:01 PM (15 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes pretty obviously when people consider the overall culture of shaming they are leaving the legitimate cases out of the equation, you can see that in this thread, if ppl instead looked at it like this phenomenon has produced some petty meanness and ruined a few undeserving peoples lives but has also produced some very real positive results it becomes a lot harder to uses as an object for facile drive by moralizing and complaining abt internet