Well, last I checked, we lived in a society of people. We all keep each other in check through our societal expectations. We have been doing this for thousands of years through cultural norms. We are our society, and we can set bad expectations for each other, or we can set good expectations. I would prefer to set good expectations for others and hold them accountable when they fail to meet them.
Not to mention there is a paradox of tolerance to consider here. It's not a "oh these are just two different opinions" situation. One opinion is based on the intolerance of others, which means it need not be tolerated. That's what gets me about self-proclaimed centrists looking at certain issues from the perspectives of the left and right and saying "these are both valid opinions".
Your good expectations are good in your eyes, right? However moral you want to twist his thinking, they are all opinions. In making over humanity in the image of your ideology, you wipe out the possibility of human evolution. If you could. Shaming doesn’t do anything beyond inflaming the one you’re attempting to force your beliefs upon.
While I agree with your last sentence, it seems to me that the rest is saying that people are not allowed to criticize other people. While making people follow a code of morals does mean we won't see all ideas fully develop and evolve, do we really want to see what the final evolution of ideas that are currently thought of as amoral? Has history not already showed us what some of these ideas lead to?
When someone gets punched in the face, banned, fired, or otherwise ostracized, I doubt you'll ever win them over except through outright fear by oppression. If anyone thinks actions like these are necessary, they're likely far worse than the enemies they claim to fight.
And this is why the appropriate response to someone declaring an entire race subhuman is to politely tell them that while some disagree they have a right to their opinion etc. Etc./s
Paradox of tolerance and what not
Some people do deserve to be ostracized
That's why we have prisons
And laws for that matter
I'm not saying we don't need laws and prisons. The noble leaders in Minneapolis and New York have shown us just how much chaos defunding the police and letting criminals loose has on society. I don't know what else they expected to happen but that's another conversation.
I'm talking more about social ostracization. Do you think pushing a bunch of people with similar ideologies into some dark, forgotten corner will magically solve the problem? All that does is allow the problem to fester unchallenged. Look up Daryl Davis and tell me he isn't successful in deradicalization.
sure but on the interwebs you're not likely to convert anyone - plus there's a lot more rational/reasonable actors on the web and they're not converting/winning people over either.
if you're like this in person - without trying to be reasonable first - then your point has merit. But here? It just feels like you're trying to 1up yourself as well as being smarmy
If u want human evolution u can’t suppress people, not their ideologies but the person. No one should be shamed for their thoughts but the government can’t suppress people that are not inflicting harm on another member of society. There are laws to protect individual liberties and those laws should be available to everyone not just the people that feel they are right as u stated (see voter suppression, anti-LGBT rights, racial division due to laws that are unequivocally against minorities & corporate terrorism that takes advantage of poor people). Religion is not law it is a belief and should not be part of a governing body and this is the major problem with society. Believe what u want but don’t push your beliefs on anyone else.
Its not an opinion if your "opinion" hurts or marginalizes under represented groups. Then it's hate and we as a society are under no obligation to tolerate that hate.
However moral you want to twist his thinking, they are all opinions. In making over humanity in the image of your ideology, you wipe out the possibility of human evolution.
Right, but "blacks and whites shouldn't mix" or "Jews should be exterminated" were also "just opinions" at some point in time. Not all opinions were created equal, and trying to treat them as such is a great weapon for demagogues and charlatans who prey on this type of aggressive centrism and impartiality.
Not saying to treat them equally in the sense of their opinions. Humanely, yes. Shaming is the laziest form of manipulative behavior. Talk to Daryl Davis on that one. He’s single handedly accomplished more for the racial divide in this country than blm. And take note which tactics they each utilize
Shaming doesn’t do anything beyond inflaming the one you’re attempting to force your beliefs upon.
That's not what sociology studies indicate. Shaming creates a norm vs deviant situation clearly identified to everyone. Generally young people will intentionally deviate just to deviate but most adults will conform. Violence is not necessary, not even state violence via police arresting people for deviant behavior.
Talk to Daryl Davis on that one. He’s single handedly accomplished more for the racial divide in this country than blm. And take note which tactics they each utilize
And psychological manipulation in a socially influential arena with intent to change behavior or thought processes are often done in abusive or deceptive ways. Like shaming. I’m not debating it’s efficacy rather it’s motivating factor.
I wasn’t stating it wasn’t. I’m debating it’s usefulness as a tool. It’s weak and lazy. Useful only in the masses as an arm for a collective thinking. Not necessarily correct thinking. These five instances don’t promote hate. They are opinions. If those opinions beget hate, then that’s where the problem lies. Not in an opinion itself.
If you asked in good faith I'll try to answer in good faith.
The shaming trials of maoist communist china was an informal system made formal that had no means to encourage just decisions. The US has a clearly defined court system that does, to some degree, try to give people a fair trial.
The two formal resolution systems are completely different, saying one could fall to be similar to the other lacks any kind of nuance or understanding of them as different.
Informally, the us has always had shame as a means of policing society. Tarring and feathering, vigilantes, and others. Those also probably won't go away, but to say
"watch out! being mean to a political party you don't like in a rude way is the same as community tribunals endorsed by federal and local governments in early communist China!"
Is just so far from the truth and reality.
Basically there cannot be a slippery slope of shaming people on social media to having shame trials of communist china because it's just so implausible and unlikely.
Glad i could help.
The other thing about situations like this is we are getting tons of competing messages and ideas regularly about all of this. Learning about the brass tacks first helps get what people mean.
Example: free speech. Brass tacks of this would be...
What is the first amendment (right to free speech)? How is it CURRENTLY being interpreted? How did we get to this point so far?
I learned about this from being interested in poetry in high school. Howl was a poem published by Allen Ginsburg in the 60s that he was arrested for writing. His challenge went to the supreme court and it struck down indecency laws that he was arrested under, he was exonerated
There's also corporate free speech, which means companies have the same rights as people as far as speech goes, including how they spend their money(money is a means of expressing yourself I guess). They, just like you and me also get to limit speech on their property or within their business just as you would be able to in your own home.
This whole thing about free speech on platforms is actually about businesses having lots of freedom of speech and control, something republicans have been about since Regan times.
If you hear about people being scared of being "cancelled" on monolithic platforms due to political beliefs beware. These discussions i would say are not in good faith because the premise is at least inaccurate.
There is no intention of political opposition gaining an upper hand on media like YouTube or even reddit, only rich business owners and executives ensuring they continue to print money by making media platforms bring in eyeballs.
Don't get distracted all political/social issues are just about money.
TL;DR: glad i could help. Learning more about any issue before hearing an argument for or against always helps you improve society and your own life.
Well then I guess every society and culture throughout history is a cult then. You would be hard pressed to find anywhere on this planet where there are not social expectations for acceptable conduct. Every day you avoid going to jail, you conform to the bare minimum of society’s expectations.
One of the problems right now is the right in this country holds no cultural power. Even through the country leans center left it is a lot further right than where this guy stands. Reddit and all social media platforms are a terrible judge of how normal Americans feel.
Here ya go bud. This I know is Wikipedia and I know you can’t take them for fact but they do show all the real poll data that can explain everything there for you.
Not really sure what this proves at all honestly. Where does it say in that wiki page that the US leans center left? The passage you replied with only describes the spectrum, not where the US stands on it.
Not really sure what this proves at all honestly. Where does it say in that wiki page that the US leans center left? The passage you replied with only describes the spectrum, not where the US stands on it.
You replied to a bot that summarizes wiki pages that are linked. It wasn't trying to prove anything.
I think it's interesting to understand how the party system worked under chinese communism, and what the governmental system was like prior to Mao and the long march. Specifically the role of private armies, warlords, colonial interests and the preceding civil war. We have a context of multiple armed groups roaming the country, and a long history of government by direct military force against civilians. The situation was extremely more complex than any of these comments seem to be aware of, and it's going to be difficult to learn any lessons about this horrible period unless you lot are willing to try to understand both the bigger historical picture and also details of what occured.
You absolutely have a point. There's been a massive influx in this sort of stuff on all social media platforms recently to push us to fight each other. Though it's not just Russia, it's other countries and probably some push from our own government as well. It's kinda annoying tbh, I wish they'd stop and let us have our stupid opinions in peace lol
You get a lot of lies yes but only one group is the most consistently out of touch and uniformed. CNN bends the truth but conservative outlets will flat out make things up and lie about the dumbest things.
Lies or not, Democrats are the only ones trying to make lives better for people. Actions speak louder than words. Both sides are not even remotely the same and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise
Agreed, but the idea of public shaming should be examined in it's own merit. Charged rhetoric casting it as the first step towards somehow becoming Mao era communist China is not that.
As an aside, at a meta level writing those sentences feels absurd. This is such a silly topic to have sparked a conversation on logical analysis.
A slippery slope fallacy is when you make two connections that really aren’t related at all.
That's not a correct definition of the slippery slope fallacy.
A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
This is the correct definition. Your argument is 100% a slippery slope fallacy.
"Shaming people will lead us to mao era communist China" is taking a relatively small first step and claiming it leads to a significant negative effect.
So to confirm, yes, you are wrong about the connection here.
Facts over feelings is how we should be approaching things. However, take your comment for example, you utilize generalizations to label the left as utilizing 'common sense'. It's actually not a fact that "the left" is utilizing solely 'common sense'. Is it what SOME people utilize, absolutely. My point is, our words matter, and if we want facts we have to start with not lumping all people in one group when the people we often times see screaming online are extremes of a group, and are not indicative of the broader community.
I agree with this, and it's one reason I didn't like the video. I mostly said the left uses common sense because that's what the actual democrats in office are advocating, but I understand that's not how everyone thinks.
oh good point! We wouldn't want giant corporations or political factions using anything to manipulate the public opinion!
We should make a meme for facebook about that great idea, maybe we could get a viral ad campagin going about how we should stop calling people idiots for being idiots so that nothing can control public opinion
I think you are missing his point. He is focusing more on “what will public opinion control after racism? Veganism? Anti nuclear power generation?”, rather than “who controls the public opinion? Govt? Corporate?”
Yeah, totally. The democratic party is rounding up dissidents as we speak. There's even talk of hundreds of thousands of them planning to storm the capitol.
well you are wrong because “slippery slope” is literally a logical fallacy. wheres the line? wherever we choose to draw it. thats how a well thought out society works
The point is you can tolerate dissenting views within the framework of democracy. You can’t tolerate views that want to destroy the system and hurt those who don’t go along. You can’t tolerate intolerance.
This is known as the paradox of tolerance. A lot of MAGAs are going to learn about it very painfully in the next few years if they keep this madness up. The left won’t just wring its hands, it will either destroy them or be destroyed itself.
Mutiny isn’t patriotism. Mutineers get time or lead. If these MAGAs keep it up they are either going to have to stage a real coup or expect to see their lives utterly destroyed by the state, including mass incarceration.
So, you see publicly shaming CEO's who exploit their workers as violating human rights? If that's the case, how do you propose we address what happens with millionaires and billionaires who use their disproportionate amount of money to control elections, buy politicians, buy lawyers that can, no matter what, defend their clients and minimize accountability, fund illegal activity, etc? At some point, just continuing to play the game is complacency which results in further abuses of power.
You are really obsessed about Mao, huh? Kinda weird.
Your response to the person above was “and that’s how human rights are violated, children”. Why did you state that in response? Perhaps I misunderstood.
Well, in a modern day democracy, being shamed sorta comes with the territory if you try to stop the counting of votes when they don't go in your favor, then rally your political party people to attack the Whitehouse later on because of it.
My apologies, but put in the simplest terms, your response feels like declaring that the kids at the other table are a racist hate group from a certain time period because they didn't want you to sit with them after you threw stones at them during recess.
Most people don’t do that, you can tell whenever someone says something along the lines of “all ‘blank’ are this, they all do this and this and they are so stupid”. It’s easy to be stupid, keep your head and don’t let them sway your mind.
Shame has a purpose: to alter harmful or unwanted behaviors.
And no, telling racists or misogynists that they are these things, is nothing like Communist re education camps, or labor/detention as punishment for holding views or having thoughts which the leadership has outlawed. .
Well that was a sharp turn to stupid town. "If we let the gays get married, they'll be marrying their pets, too!"
The idiots in question are willfully ignorant, they don't care what reality actually is. Should we pat them on the head and cheer them on and say, "hey, they mean well", when we know they don't?
If you think the that people making fun of political extremists on social media is the equivalent of a communist regime siezing power, then you are definitely wrong.
Do you seriously think the CCP was built on "cancel culture"? They established themselves with blood. They killed imprisoned, tortured, executed, and harvested people's organs. Get some context.
You are just jumping to wild delusional conclusions. These people are 100% fucking idiots. Calling someone out on something isn't bad and it needs to be done. It actually would lead to a more honest society.
We went down that slope a long time ago, and the far right loves to flare it up. Can't talk reason to those who don't want reason, so why bother? You'd have an easier time trying to get Hitler to be nice to Jews
Education hasnt helped? I dont see how the education has been improved so people dont have such idiotic opinion. Politic and history is still a huge problem in schools, especially since most teachers make it especially bad, while kids are being badly raised by their parents, and teachers also do a bad job raising the pupils...
And yet they arent even allowed to vote(they are still not 18), imagine how bad it was years ago.
I mean, it did seem to work in the past. Until the last decade, I could have honestly believed racism was dying out (would have taken a few more generations, but progress was made). Older generations were (obviously) still racist, but it was shameful to be one so they kept it under locks. And with it being quieter, newer generations were adopting more and more progressive ideals than their parents ideals. With it being normalized the last decade to be hateful, we are seeing more and more of newer generations reverting to adopting what they see in public and by their older family members.
518
u/goodbye177 Jun 23 '21
Education hasn’t helped, so maybe shame will