Posted on 03/06/2017 5:30:31 AM PST by tbw2
"So You've Been Publicly Shamed" is a book by Jon Ronson that goes back to visit the victims of various internet shaming scandals, as well as studies the survivors of older scandals, psychologists who discuss the long term impact of seeming rejection by society and recovery methods for individuals and society as a whole.
I'm presently reading a speech communication book by someone who is a social moralist devoted to making deviancy acceptable. The underlying argument is usualy the true raison de faire.
Here at FR the mobs get chronically fevered; so we already know what the problem is. And reading more about it might indicate an addiction.
Have you read the book?
Why just social media? Just who is regular main stream media mob that decries bullying while denigrating Western Civilization?
Yes, I’ve read Mr. Ronson’s book and watched his TED talks on both “when online shaming spirals out of control” and his “psychopath” test.
OK, so what’s the underlying argument?
Social media shaming is more pernicious to the innocent person because it allows thousands or even more to join into the moral lynching of the moment, and competing with each other to up the ante. (Dr. Jordan Peterson has discussed this as a uniquely human evil. The chimp may rage at you and hate you for coming into its territory and kill you, but it doesn’t take pleasure in the prolonging of the pain.)
Thus the perception isn’t just that your friends and family are angry with you, but the whole society is mad at you, hates you, wants you to disappear. Death threats, rape threats more so for women targets, coordinated efforts to get you fired, and in the more recent times, expansion of the effort to punish your family and friends.
Sargon of Akkad put out a video likening Social Justice programs to a cult. Not only was he attacked online and they tried to undercut his revenue by reporting as many videos as possible as hate, but they identified and harassed his girlfriend.
Scott Adams criticized SJWs and praised Trump’s techniques, and not only was he shadowbanned on Twitter and digitally assaulted along with campaigns that nearly cut off his income, but Twitter de-verified his girlfriend twice to undercut HER income while she, too, was harassed.
In one case in the follow up article the author wrote, a young woman posted a poem critical of a BLM fake martyr, and not only was she digitally hate mobbed and there was an organized campaign to kick her out of school, they posted her family’s address and phone number and harassed her parents. Someone found their social security numbers and posted it to cause identity theft ...
Even in the 1800s, when the pilloried the guilty parent, they didn’t bother the children or spouse. And while you were horribly embarrassed from the public pillorying, the authorities didn’t let it escalate to permanent financial penalties in most cases.
OK, nothing new there, it seems. But why is the left so interested in this?
OK, here’s a thought: The left is interested in this topic because they need a moral crusade to regulate social media. Better yet—moral shaming is reserved for an elite credentialed class.
Shirley Jackson, author of The Lottery "received a number of letters asking her where these rituals took place—and if they could go watch them." link
This can work for them when there are just a few targets. But when they try to use this approach broadly, it is doomed to fail. People don’t have the time to shame millions of targets. Another factor is that conservatives are learning how to fight back. Tit for tat. The left is not going to like it so much when they become the shaming victims. They will. Conservatives are tired of lies. One example is all the hoax hate crimes. Instead of letting the stories fade away, it’s time to start shaming the perps who commit fake “crimes” against themselves and then pretend to be victims.
Any thoughts?
bump
They are bringing the culture war to the average person, and joining in a digital hate mob lets the average liberal bully act as a “warrior” of the cause with little effort and sometimes horrifying effect.
There are different kinds of shaming and I'd like to know why the left is so busy wagging its finger about "bullying."
Thanks for the heads up...
I have presented a lecture on “Recognizing and Resisting Mind Control and Manipulation” for a conference. Shame is one control and manipulation technique.
The degree to which a person is affected by shame is dependent upon source and level of self identity perspective.
If a person is in a dependency relationship, shame coming from the person you are dependent upon has a much greater impact than from others.
If you are in transition and have a group identity or group dependency, shame from the group (gang or peers) has a greater impact than shame from outsiders.
If you have a strong self identity or ego identity, shame that injures the perception of self identity is very painful.
If you have grown spiritually and have transcended self, you can wear plaid pants with a striped shirt and care less what anyone else thinks as your identity is based upon your individual relationship with God.
Note: My ex-wife left me when she said that I became “Teflon Coated” when it came to guilt. She couldn’t shame me any more.
The other thing I have noted about shame is that children whose mothers do not want them when they first become pregnant have a greatly increased predisposition to shame. Even if the mother was an excellent mother, the imprint of the early pre-birth experience in the womb programs the emotional subconscious to the point that a person could be an Olympic gold Medalist or a Nobel Prize Winner and still not feel good enough.
I’ve observed several different cults and religious groups first hand who use of shame/guilt to create group conformity to specific behaviors. Funny thing... intelligence level does not correlate to whether a person is manipulated by shame/guilt.
Alinsky Rules Use Shame too:
Saul Alinsky’s Rules from Rules for Radicals
Saul Alinsky describes 24 rules in Rules for Radicals. Of those 24 rules, 13 are rules of “power tactics”:
1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy
thinks you have.”
2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.”
3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the
enemy.”
4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and
actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing
itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of
operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will
break through into its counterside.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive
alternative.”
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
The remaining 11 rules Alinsky describes are concerned with “the ethics of means and ends”:
1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue … Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.”
2. “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”
3. “In war the end justifies almost any means.”
4. “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”
5. “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”
6. “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”
7. “Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”
8. “The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”
9. “Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”
10. “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
11. “Goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”
Here’s a great article that might explain why they are doing so much finger-wagging.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.