Righteous Shaming

[Chief Rum]

So, I was going through my FB feed this morning and came upon one of those flowchart-style posts which was designed to embarrass anyone who didn't agree with same-sex marriage equality.

And it struck me that the righteous have really gone way over the top in shaming those who disagree with them.

This is coming from someone who is 100% for same sex marriage and was thrilled by the SCOTUS decision.

I saw sorta the same thing in the Anti-Vaxx thread here, which ligthousekeeper pointed out abit there.

I also think Anti-Vaxxers are kinda moronic, and I think they bring real potential harm to their children and others when they follow through on their stance on that. So it's a little different there--there is real societal risk (I don't feel there really is with same sex marriage equality, certainly not on a life-risking level).

So I completely disagree with those stances, but I find myself getting disgusted with the over the top way in which the majority (from what I see) is reacting to them, shaming them publically, pointing fingers, hey look everyone, idiots.

I just don't think that is right.

[nol]

You can think that, and then you can look at the over-the-top way in which the majority of people used to react to the idea of gay people getting married (or just the existence of gay people in general) and realize that there are worse things than being called an idiot on the Internet.

[revrew]

Tell me about it.

I'm a homeschooling, anti-(mandatory)vax, white, Christian, Republican (leaning), pro-life, evolution-skeptical, anti-gay-marriage dude.

And I have endured more condescending spite, more hate, more bigotry, and more snobbery in the last couple of years at the hands of the "tolerant" left than I even believed possible. I attended an event where I was told, "If you pray for me, I'll kick your a$$," been called names, and walked through protesters who openly shouted, "We've won! We're done being tolerant now!" I even had a national TV host refer to me in his "Worst Person in the World" segment on MSNBC. The "righteous" really are giving themselves a bad name.

Two thoughts:
1. At what point does public shaming actually work against credibility? I mean, if the righteous are so right, why do they need to shout down, shame, and vilify opposition? Is their reasoning so weak it can't stand scrutiny?

2. I would really like to see our nation/world develop a more civil dialogue. I've had some very civil, meaningful conversations with people with whom I adamantly disagree, and it was downright refreshing.

[molson]

My facebook feed always contains this kind of shaming of conservatives and Christians generally (and sometimes southerners), not just relating to gay marriage and vaccinations - though of course it peaks in times like this. There's a tiny bit of the converse from conservatives against liberals, but being in my 30s from New England who has always lived in cities, my peers are overwhelmingly liberal (even in Idaho), and the few conservatives mostly seem to avoid wanting to make waves and talk politics at all. If I was honest about my feelings on religion (i.e., that I find any value in it at all), I'd be alienated from a lot of people around me. That's something people learn about me only if they get really close.

[Subby]

Does this mean we can't shame vapor trailers and 9-11 truthers?

[Subby]

My facebook feed always contains this kind of shaming of conservatives and Christians generally (and sometimes southerners), not just relating to gay marriage and vaccinations. There's a tiny bit of the converse from conservatives against liberals, but being in my 30s from New England who has always lived in cities, my peers are overwhelmingly liberal (even in Idaho - Boise is quite liberal), and the few conservatives mostly seem to avoid wanting to make waves and talk politics at all.
Seems pretty anecdotal. I have plenty of conservatives on my facebook feed that hate OBUMMER and think that if you aren't literally interpreting the bible you aren't a true christian.

As I have told my wife, there is no reason to go political on facebook, particularly when you probably have 95% of your family on there. You just end up pissing each other off. I might have posted something celebrating the supreme court decision in Obergefell, but otherwise I keep it locked down. I have to see my relatives in real life and it's usually better if we just leave politics out of it! :)

[lungs]

I shame people in my head but don't go out of my way to shame others. I've also been shamed before, given what I do for a living.

[molson]

Seems pretty anecdotal. I have plenty of conservatives on my facebook feed that hate OBUMMER and think that if you aren't literally interpreting the bible you aren't a true christian.

As I have told my wife, there is no reason to go political on facebook, particularly when you probably have 95% of your family on there. You just end up pissing each other off. I might have posted something celebrating the supreme court decision in Obergefell, but otherwise I keep it locked down. I have to see my relatives in real life and it's usually better if we just leave politics out of it! :)

It's anecdotal but also a product of where you come from and who you know. I've always been surrounded by liberals, hence the nature of my facebook feed. So even though I agree with a lot of what they say, I can't help but be really annoyed by some of the habits some can have (like you would be with your family). If I was surrounded by conservatives I'm sure I'd develop stronger annoyances regarding their habits.

Edit: Fortunately I also do have a big chunk of facebook friends that are church-going New England Lutheran liberals (or at least they have that church background and still have an affinity for it, even if they don't go anymore). That definitely does help balance out the daily posts and memes I get about how religion is only for morons and bigots.

[JPhillips]

Tell me about it.

I'm a homeschooling, anti-(mandatory)vax, white, Christian, Republican (leaning), pro-life, evolution-skeptical, anti-gay-marriage dude.

And I have endured more condescending spite, more hate, more bigotry, and more snobbery in the last couple of years at the hands of the "tolerant" left than I even believed possible. I attended an event where I was told, "If you pray for me, I'll kick your a$$," been called names, and walked through protesters who openly shouted, "We've won! We're done being tolerant now!" I even had a national TV host refer to me in his "Worst Person in the World" segment on MSNBC. The "righteous" really are giving themselves a bad name.

Two thoughts:
1. At what point does public shaming actually work against credibility? I mean, if the righteous are so right, why do they need to shout down, shame, and vilify opposition? Is their reasoning so weak it can't stand scrutiny?

2. I would really like to see our nation/world develop a more civil dialogue. I've had some very civil, meaningful conversations with people with whom I adamantly disagree, and it was downright refreshing.

Come on, you write for World Net Daily. Of all people around here you have little room to talk about civil dialogue.

[RainMaker]

My biggest gripe is the people who feel they should take your livelihood away if you hold a different political opinion.

Or the people who throw tantrums when someone makes an off-color joke or says a word out of frustration. Forcing these people to do week long apology tours.

[JPhillips]

I shame people in my head but don't go out of my way to shame others. I've also been shamed before, given what I do for a living.

I just found out today that every year 22 people are killed by cows. You deserve shaming.

[Tekneek]

Everyone should be more dignified and polite. Unfortunately, they don't seem to find much use in it. If you understand that some people are going to be that way, and that you probably won't be able to say anything that will convince them to do otherwise, you are faced with either accepting them the way they are or moving on.

[Solecismic]

It's something we learn in grade school - shame people to get them to adopt the norm. In middle school, it's a brand of jeans. In high school, it's all about shunning the "weird" kids.

I'm not going to go all "Revenge of the Nerds" on you, because it's not that simple, nor do I want to glorify a movie that has one the most disturbing rape scenes in semi-recent cinema history.

We've had the Moral Majority, which tried to dictate what everyone could watch on television among other things, at a time when nearly everyone watched network prime-time television.

The church has always used shaming in abundance.

Political power has shifted, and today groups that had little power 20-40 years ago have a lot of power. And they're showing their strength in much the same manner as those who shamed them in the past.

Yes, it's a shame - I don't like it any more than you do, and I largely agree with their positions (except, it seems, on global warming, so I get shamed, too). But it's human nature, and people on the shamed side can take comfort in the fact that many people who agree with them are getting more and more frustrated, and might, soon enough, be on top and potentially back to majority shaming again.

[Logan]

Stay off social media and use the internet for actual news/pure entertainment (ie not reading comments sections) and probably 95% of this goes away for you.

[Tekneek]

Yes, it's a shame - I don't like it any more than you do, and I largely agree with their positions (except, it seems, on global warming, so I get shamed, too). But it's human nature, and people on the shamed side can take comfort in the fact that many people who agree with them are getting more and more frustrated, and might, soon enough, be on top and potentially back to majority shaming again.

Indeed. It is a cycle that a lot of people don't seem to be able to break. Unable to learn from history, human beings generally repeat the same mistakes over and over, seemingly needing to "learn the hard way" each time. Economies go from bust-to-boom-to-bust, instead of maintaining a moderate and sustainable growth trajectory. It appears to be human nature to repeat these cycles again and again. Some people realize it and try to opt out, but the masses do what they do.

[Chief Rum]

Stay off social media and use the internet for actual news/pure entertainment (ie not reading comments sections) and probably 95% of this goes away for you.

I don't necessarily accept that ignoring the issue is the right thing to do.

[Tekneek]

I don't necessarily accept that ignoring the issue is the right thing to do.

Life is too short to really spend much time worrying about a flow chart or meme somebody posted to Facebook, isn't it?

[lighthousekeeper]

If you pray for me, I'll kick your a$$

That is a bumper sticker, tshirt, and punk rock lyric all screaming to be made.

[Chief Rum]

Life is too short to really spend much time worrying about a flow chart or meme somebody posted to Facebook, isn't it?

I wouldn't say I'm worried about it. I just think it goes against my values to not at least make an effort to change that, at least among those who know me best.

[Subby]

Fox Host Todd Starnes: "Record-Breaking Floods Have Inundated" D.C. After Supreme Court Defied God | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/29/fox-host-todd-starnes-record-breaking-floods-ha/204187)

I'm not stopping until this p.o.s. stops.

[MrBug708]

I feel like if I believe and do the exact opposite of Subby, there isn't a chance I'd ever be wrong. Or a dick.

[MrBug708]

Sorry for the shaming

[rowech]

I think a lot of the shaming in some instances is not Righteous shaming but Science shaming. It becomes scary when people want to ignore science. That's been going on for thousands of years though and I don't expect it to change.

[Tekneek]

I wouldn't say I'm worried about it. I just think it goes against my values to not at least make an effort to change that, at least among those who know me best.

I agree on a high level. It all depends on how reasonable, rational, and open minded that person is to new information. There is no point trying to get a message through to a closed minded person, especially if they are surrounded by their own echo chamber.

[Subby]

I feel like if I believe and do the exact opposite of Subby, there isn't a chance I'd ever be wrong. Or a dick.
It would be like George in that episode of Seinfeld!

[Brian Swartz]

I think that, like most situations where this a controversial change, there are going to be a lot of people not real happy with themselves about the lack of compassion with which they treated the 'other side'.

I think it probably varies a lot from person to person and area to area depending on who exactly you have on your facebook etc. For me it's broken down pretty equally in terms of those on each side of the issue I'd be tempted to punch in the face before common sense regained it's hold.

[Solecismic]

Who knew, way back when, that The Dukes of Hazzard would become a lightning rod for censorship from the right and left?

But the left has accomplished where the right has failed...

How can the Moral Majority possibly hate 'The Dukes... - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/06/How-can-the-Moral-Majority-possibly-hate-The-Dukes/5278371188800/)

TV Land Pulls 'Dukes of Hazzard' Reruns - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tv-land-pulls-dukes-hazzard-reruns/story?id=32152437)

Whenever we delve into the world of censorship, I think about fascism rather than enlightenment. Has the left become the new right?

[EagleFan]

When some people can't see what is right in front of them it makes it too easy to point that out. (ie: anti-vaxers, the 9/11 truthers, the con-trailers, etc...)

When people want to take away the rights of others, they deserve the shaming. (ie: the ban gay marriage nuts)

When people want to kill others for having a different belief, well they deserve worse than shaming. (ie: terrorists, isis brainless lemmings)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not really seeing a problem here, conceptually at least. Which, y'know, ain't really gonna come as a shock to either of us.

I'm not a fan of "tolerating the intolerable" and I'm pretty much on board with eliminating it by whatever means necessary at this point.

I think a lot of us feel like we've just had a big lesson in what a mistake "tolerance" can be, that slippery slopes really ARE frequently slippery.
I suspect that's going to be a lesson a lot more folks take to heart in the days ahead, you're going to see more of what you're talking about because of it, not less.

[dubb93]

ftfy


(btw i'm totally not anti-vaxxer, just want to illustrate that it is very common that in order to preserve my perceived rights (e.g. my right to not have my kid get the mumps) I must take away your perceived rights (personal parenting rights))

your post illustrates how we can simplify things to justify shaming.

Social control has been around since the dawn of society. Not really sure what the fix for it or if we should even be advocating that it should go away.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm not against shaming in general, it's the 'sputtering rage' version of it that is wrong. This version of shaming, by far the most common from my point of view, is not even interested in considering the opposing point of view or why they think that way. It's the combination of arrogance and willful ignorance displayed by it's practitioners that I object to, not shaming itself. 'Social conscience' if you will, can be an important force for good.

[Alan T]

As I have told my wife, there is no reason to go political on facebook, particularly when you probably have 95% of your family on there. You just end up pissing each other off.

Pretty much my philosophy. I actually highly doubt that most of my non-immediate family actually even know what my stances are on many political issues.

My wife and I often discuss the various issues in detail, we often go into quite a bit of research on topics we do not necessarily know.. but beyond her I rarely ever "share" my political ideology with my other family or facebook friends.

[Chief Rum]

Yes, despite me starting this thread, I don't really ever make political/social/religious commentaries either.

[Brian Swartz]

I view that as a sad commentary on our society. I certainly don't view myself as being better than anyone else, but I've literally never -- not even in my most politically passionate right-wing conservative days -- gotten upset at anyone because they had a different political philosophy. The worst I can say it's ever gotten is moderate frustration. I just don't understand getting that upset about it -- life's too short.

[stevew]

So are they going to cut the Dukes up to eliminate confederate flag shots, or CGI it away? Really a major overreaction

[molson]

Who knew, way back when, that The Dukes of Hazzard would become a lightning rod for censorship from the right and left?

But the left has accomplished where the right has failed...

How can the Moral Majority possibly hate 'The Dukes... - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/06/How-can-the-Moral-Majority-possibly-hate-The-Dukes/5278371188800/)

TV Land Pulls 'Dukes of Hazzard' Reruns - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tv-land-pulls-dukes-hazzard-reruns/story?id=32152437)

Whenever we delve into the world of censorship, I think about fascism rather than enlightenment. Has the left become the new right?

Now we'll never see the triumphant return of 1980's WWF wrestling legend, "The Rebel" Dick Slater.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IB-CsETikfU/hqdefault.jpg

[molson]

I just don't understand getting that upset about it -- life's too short.

It's not just getting upset about seeing something on the internet. These are people in your life. So it's about knowing that people who are in your life have a broad and aggressive hostility towards groups that include you. There's ways to deal with that, but it isn't always the easiest thing to just blow off and never think about.

[miami_fan]

I'm not against shaming in general, it's the 'sputtering rage' version of it that is wrong. This version of shaming, by far the most common from my point of view, is not even interested in considering the opposing point of view or why they think that way. It's the combination of arrogance and willful ignorance displayed by it's practitioners that I object to, not shaming itself. 'Social conscience' if you will, can be an important force for good.

Forgive me but what are the other versions of shaming that involve consideration of the opposing point of view?

I am not sure any side of a discussion that requires shaming can ever really be interested in considering the other point of view.

[Drake]

I've seen enough of those shaming lists to realize that usually the person writing it has only a freshman-level understanding of the topic they've decided to go after (especially if that topic is religious)...and then just feel embarrassed for them that they put their lack of knowledge on public display.

I mean, I was 12 once, so I get it. But then I grew up.

[cuervo72]

I just found out today that every year 22 people are killed by cows. You deserve shaming.

I blame the French.

[Izulde]

I'd say my FB friends list is split roughly 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, with a high % of the former atheist, and a high % of the latter evangelical Christian.

In terms of vitriol, I don't have that much. Well, a handful of the atheists posting anti-religion stuff constantly, but those I unfollow, so I don't see that on my newsfeed anymore. Otherwise it's a couple liberals calling out right wingers, and a smattering of conservatives ripping Obama constantly.

For the most part, it's pretty civil, and even when some of my posts generate contentious debates, they tend to be less heated and more intellectual than a lot of other threads on the same subjects.

[dubb93]

I'd say my FB friends list is split roughly 50/50 between liberals and conservatives, with a high % of the former atheist, and a high % of the latter evangelical Christian.

In terms of vitriol, I don't have that much. Well, a handful of the atheists posting anti-religion stuff constantly, but those I unfollow, so I don't see that on my newsfeed anymore. Otherwise it's a couple liberals calling out right wingers, and a smattering of conservatives ripping Obama constantly.

For the most part, it's pretty civil, and even when some of my posts generate contentious debates, they tend to be less heated and more intellectual than a lot of other threads on the same subjects.

I envy you. Quite frankly, most of my FB friends need to just shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing themselves. I had one today going to town about how uneducated all gay rights activists are and how when they die they will get their education. My grammar could use quite a bit of work, but this dude had 17 spelling errors in that one Facebook post. I stay out of social media political posts. I don't believe Facebook is the place for them.

[Brian Swartz]

I am not sure any side of a discussion that requires shaming can ever really be interested in considering the other point of view.

The other version of shaming would have the same end result, but they reach it with more civility. You can be absolutely completely virulently opposed to every aspect of an opinion and it's consequences without demonizing the people espousing it.

I think we basically look at this opposite if I understand you correctly. I don't think there's any side of any issue, especially those that require shaming, that wouldn't be enhanced by ensuring proper understand of and respect for the opposing point of view.

[SackAttack]

I think there's a point at which it's both healthy and necessary. It's possible to go too far, as with anything.

Shaming somebody on religious grounds, either through the use of religious texts to justify one's bigotry, or to use said religious texts to prove that religious arguments aren't as effective as the religious think they are, I don't know that that ever gets anywhere. The religious are going to dig their feet in the ground against gay marriage; their children are going to grow up with gay friends or the children of gay couples, and they won't have as much of an issue with it. Those who already support equality aren't going to say "well, shit. I supported equality, but I can't do that anymore. Sorry homogays, you're on your own now." If you gotta sound your barbaric yawp one way or the other anyway, you do you. Otherwise, the frustration boils up inside. That's not healthy.

On the other hand, I am completely in favor of shaming the ignorant who think science is out to get them. I really do not care whether I reach you on an intellectual level and you realize that you've been a fool for exposing your children to preventable (and sometimes devastating) childhood diseases, or if you vaccinate because you're tired of me making fun of you.

The end result is the same: the child is vaccinated, herd immunity is improved or maintained, and we don't have to go through this shit every generation when a generation of new parents who don't remember how awful these diseases were BECAUSE VACCINATION MEANT THEY NEVER CONTRACTED THEM go into special-snowflake-panic-mode.

Ideally, yes, one could reach such people on a rational level. When that proves impossible, I'm not above reaching for whatever tool I have in the toolbox to achieve the aim.

[miami_fan]

The other version of shaming would have the same end result, but they reach it with more civility. You can be absolutely completely virulently opposed to every aspect of an opinion and it's consequences without demonizing the people espousing it.

I think we basically look at this opposite if I understand you correctly. I don't think there's any side of any issue, especially those that require shaming, that wouldn't be enhanced by ensuring proper understand of and respect for the opposing point of view.

My objection is to the inclusion of the shaming. Yes, we can disagree. Yes it is better when both parties understand the other side's POV. At that point we can simply (or not so simply) say we agree to disagree and move on. Once shaming is introduced into the discussion, the respect and the civility of that discussion tends to go out of the window. I don't know how you can have shaming as part of any discussion and not have demonetization as well.

[EagleFan]

Why does it lower the value of currency...

[miami_fan]

Why does it lower the value of currency...

See, now I am digging in my heels and I am not fixing it!:D

[Dutch]

:)

[EagleFan]

See, now I am digging in my heels and I am not fixing it!:D

:devil:

[Tekneek]

Whenever somebody decides to engage in this activity, they are already certain that they know all of the details and that the people on the other side are complete idiots or evil bastards that effectively need to be put in their place.

It's fine if you really believe that you have to pick up that pitchfork and torch, but let's not pretend that it is the dignified and mannerly way to go about things. It is one of many choices, not the only choice.

[Tekneek]

Who knew, way back when, that The Dukes of Hazzard would become a lightning rod for censorship from the right and left?

But the left has accomplished where the right has failed...


These things are ridiculous, no matter who is driving it. Especially over something so inane.

[lighthousekeeper]

These things are ridiculous, no matter who is driving it. Especially over something so inane.

i've always felt the same way. the article i linked is the first argument that makes me doubt though - if (and it's jsut speculation) his gambling while managing forced him to make decisions that hurt the careers of the players playing for him.

[Autumn]

Righteousness is the right word to use. I find that so much is murky and questioned these days that I think when people see something that htey feel safe in saying is 100% wrong they just feed on that feeling of righteousness and go through the roof with it. I think it's why the media loves sensational crime stories that are so one-sided, everybody can have a guilty pleasure out of just ripping into someone without having to consider the other side or being tactful. As people polarize themselves in their own political groups they get to do that out of the strawmen of the other side and have everybody pat them on the back for it.