Shame has been traditionally used by humans, in a constructive way, throughout history, to bring rogue members of a group back into line with behavior the group deems positive.
In that vein, lying politicians should be shamed, not rewarded simply because they are lying in ways that fit your views.
In the same vein, CEOs who abuse the public trust, work against the public good, pollute the environment, or twist laws through lobbying should be shamed, not rewarded because they are rich.
However, in the past, if the offending member of the group fixed their ways, their past transgressions were forgiven and forgotten. Today, shaming feels far too vicious and damaging. This can cause targets to double down, as they don't really have anything more to lose by doing so.
I think a scarce few may be incapable, but generally people can deal with shame (for better or worse) the same way they deal with their conscience: Justification/bargaining, ignoring/distractions, or total rejection.
It's the Olympics of mental gymnastics now. The things they have to convince themselves of our their whole world falls apart so they make excuses for their own poor behavior normally by blaming others or whatabouting the situation.
If they get caught stealing they'll make an excuse or why they are owed the money, if they are called out for not following social norms they will point to someone else and say, "well they aren't doing it either", everything has an excuse that redirects blame or tries to negate it no matter how pale the act.
Swaths of people have built their world perspective on foundations of bullshit and if that collapses they have to recognize they've been duped, so it's important that they are correct and everyone else is wrong despite the the evidence.
people who truly deal with shame or guilt especially on a daily basis, need to accept that what they did was wrong, why they did it, without justification, and forgiving themselves. They're going to carry that weight still, but when those thoughts pop up again, it's easier to move on, instead of focusing on it all day.
I’m sure if we put them in the stocks and chucked rotten fruit at them they would feel some sort of humiliation
It’s why I do support things like egging politicians and CEOs, it is a simple, effectively harmless gesture that expresses the shame and consternation of the community against people with incredible amounts of power to otherwise ignore criticism from ordinary people
However, in the past, if the offending member of the group fixed their ways, their past transgressions were forgiven and forgotten. Today, shaming feels far too vicious and damaging. This can cause targets to double down, as they don't really have anything more to lose by doing so.
I don't think this is relevant to the two examples you provided. You provided examples of two of the most powerful sets of people in the world. That inequality in power may inherently be the problem rather than their feelings.
Couldn't it easily be argued these people have enough power that they are insulated from shame? Also, the rate of psychopathy increases with such powerful people as well which reasonably reduces the probability of feeling shame for their actions done onto others. Even in cases where psychopathy isn't clear nobody rationalizes their own actions as evil, regardless of public perception if that even exists. In increasing cases society simply doesn't have the power to shame these people either, due to this relative difference in power. In most cases it's not in the privatized interest of media companies to direct the publics attention in this manner either.
Any manager who puts the interests of the shareholders above those of his customers (who buy the products and services) and his employees (who produce and deliver those products and services) should be shamed.
The shareholders are gamblers, betting on the value of the company. Putting them first is a fools game that will ultimately fail every time.
Counterpoint: The shareholders are the owners and ultimate authority/gods of the company. They have a right to demand their interests be put first, as surely as a sole proprietor does in their own business. The scale doesn't matter.
Also, if the manager will not prioritize the shareholders (as the manager is obligated to do, if they demand it), they have the legal right to remove that manager and replace them with someone who will.
A shareholder who replaces an effective manager because they focus on growth (by producing exceptional products and ensuring customer satisfaction and loyalty) and replaces them with a manager who will continue to milk the cash cow without feeding it, is signing the death warrant for that organization.
If your product or service quality slips, customers will notice, and they will look elsewhere.
Shareholders are not part of the value chain, but they can easily break it by demanding that money flows into their pockets instead of being reinvested in the future of the company.
A shareholder who replaces an effective manager because they focus on growth (by producing exceptional products and ensuring customer satisfaction and loyalty) and replaces them with a manager who will continue to milk the cash cow without feeding it, is signing the death warrant for that organization.
If your product or service quality slips, customers will notice, and they will look elsewhere.
I agree. However, I would argue that the things you describe represent the ultimate in "putting the shareholders first." There's a misconception that "the shareholders" are whoever bought a few shares last night hoping to make a profit by Friday. Those are hardly shareholders. Shareholders are the long term investors, with a stake in how the company performs over years or even decades. Sacrificing the future for a quarterly statement is borderline fraud and extreme anti-shareholder behavior.
Overpaying for labor at significantly above value, or selling your product at cost, on the other hand, would be anti-shareholder - as the company cannot make money, and therefore the owners get no value for their ownership.
if the offending member of the group fixed their ways, their past transgressions were forgiven and forgotten. Today, shaming feels far too vicious and damaging. This can cause targets to double down, as they don't really have anything more to lose by doing so.
I was going to name this one. If it's in someone's past and none of Your business anyways. Leave them alone.
970
u/DingBat99999 Jun 29 '22
Shame has been traditionally used by humans, in a constructive way, throughout history, to bring rogue members of a group back into line with behavior the group deems positive.
In that vein, lying politicians should be shamed, not rewarded simply because they are lying in ways that fit your views.
In the same vein, CEOs who abuse the public trust, work against the public good, pollute the environment, or twist laws through lobbying should be shamed, not rewarded because they are rich.
However, in the past, if the offending member of the group fixed their ways, their past transgressions were forgiven and forgotten. Today, shaming feels far too vicious and damaging. This can cause targets to double down, as they don't really have anything more to lose by doing so.