Posted on 08/22/2020 8:51:35 AM PDT by tbw2
Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” came out in 2015. It may be the first in depth series of interviews on people who have had their reputations and lives ruined by the return of public shaming through the internet, social media and Twitter.
What are the pros and cons of this modern text, equal parts sociology text, biography of victims, history lesson and psychological treatise?
(Excerpt) Read more at owlcation.com ...
So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, a Book Review
https://owlcation.com/humanities/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed-a-Book-Review
Shamed by...who? The shameful? How does that work exactly?
Cancel culture, liberal digital hate mobs.
Exactly. Don’t accord the bastards any value.
If I was shamed:
“Wait? You think I care what a commie Woke twit like you even thinks? The criticism of an evil baby killing, poofter loving, gender and race identity lunatic maggoty POS like you actually encourages me I’m doing something right. Now I strongly suggest you go perform a geometrically impossible sex act on yourself and die. Humanity would be better off without you.”
With due respect, this is the most tortured opening paragraph I have seen in awhile.
The passive voice:"taking..starting...shaming..researching...standing..." makes for painful reading. I searched for meaning in this paragraph and was left adrift. Would that she had an editor.
As a Vietnam Vet, we were the first, Guinea pigs, in this public shaming malarkey.
So, anything since then ... bite me!!
bump
I am a professional editor (20+ years of professional experience, working full time).
In that excerpt, the syntax is, indeed, rather tortured. (My chief criticism is that the sentences are over-long and contain too many participial constructions. Further, the expression "starting story" is rather infelicitous.) The words you cited were participles (participial phrases), verb tenses (of the past continuous), and gerunds.
However, nowhere is the passive voice to be found in this passage.
Regards,
In an unforgiving world, only the shameless survive.
btt
It’s not just posing in my case. Years and years ago a couple of Freshmen bow-heads (the fashion was to wear large hair bows) at college took offense that I’d gone back for more veal at the cafeteria and so felt the need to find me and ask if I knew what veal was.
Now, I guess I could have simply challenged them that the cafeteria, no matter how nice, would not be serving real veal but just extra tenderized beef but I was apparently in a foul mood anyway and didn’t like being lectured to so after acknowledging that I too knew what veal was I added “the animal’s suffering only enhanced my pleasure at eating its flesh.” and then turned away not even caring to see their response.
Not giving two s***s about how people who are easily offended feel is the proper way to deal with them. Caring about how they feel is the wrong tactic. There is no end to “feels”, and usually little rationality backing them (I say usually because, for example, the bow-heads actually had a bit of a point ... real veal animals suffer horribly but real veal isn’t served in even fancy AYCE cafeterias).
I’ve long wanted to build a boat to cruise the Great Loop in. The name I still want to giver her will be San Jacinto.
... but I’m flirting with naming it White Privilege instead.
I remember the deal with veal, back in the day.
But there was no way they were messing with my veal parmigiana!
I wonder if the Bow-Heads knew about pate de fois gras?
Well, since I don’t do liver I never got a chance to find out.
I don’t do liver either. Eyew! :-)
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.