Racism and internet vigilantism

The US allows for speech that is far more incendiary, far more dangerous, and far more hateful than just about any nation in the world. My statement is that if National Burn a Koran Day is protected speech, a little web shaming is a pale shade by comparison.

To state that a more individualistic censure or shaming is a better alternative ignores that many bigoted people exist away from those who would challenge them on a personal level. We talk about conservative and liberal political echo chambers all the time around here. And my premise for these people has been on the supposition that in all likelihood they are parroting what their parents and friends are saying, and believe within their own circles that this is appropriate. We had several men vying for congress who never saw any real challenge with their views on women, on sexual crime.

Society turning a blind eye to these distasteful activities seems a breach of the social contract to me when their own communities fail to challenge them on those views. I see it not only as a right, as high as a duty for society to correct where their own family and peer groups have failed.

That's a fairly reasonable opinion, as long as you're on the right side of "socially acceptable" 100% of the time.

Otherwise don't bother looking for employment I guess.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Ha, then maybe that's where the disconnect was. I (and probably Demyx) totally agree with confronting and shaming racists. Just using the general public to do it as opposed to doing it yourself or just specifically drawing it out to the target's social circle is a huge risk.

My problem is when they're publishing personal info. That page doesn't publish Bobby Jindal's address or phone number, implying you should go harass him.

I would have zero problem with this blog if they weren't publishing addresses and such.

Also, Jindal's job is one of the few that is actually up for public vote, which makes a huge difference. It's appropriate to scrutinize his personal beliefs in that case. In my opinion, it's okay to decide not to vote for someone on the basis of personal beliefs; it's a lot less okay to, say, call up some random person's boss and try to get them fired because you disagree with something they said on the internet.

They're only copying and pasting from public venues, though. No one is being hacked or anything. If I say that my phone number is 616-555-7666 here, and then say "btw I hate malaria," I don't think I have a right to be surprised or mad when my first name and phone number show up on a pro-malaria web site.

Well so far as I am aware, you still have freedom of choice. You can choose to make your charged speech anonymous. Benjamin Franklin did this as a young man to safe guard his business from some of his racier views. You can stand by your comments and perhaps take up suit over your discharge. Many teachers who supposedly were fired for their beliefs and curriculum regarding creationism and intelligent design did so, and were shot down in court. The courts acknowledged co rights of employees to speak, but also of employers to protect their image, of the greater good a school would need to secure for the institution and its students. Or you can act like an adult, realize that there are times and places for all sorts of speech, not all of which will be met with open arms and acceptance.

Or maybe, just maybe, people should watch their damn mouths before they speak in public? Because your talking about blowing president coon's head off with a shotgun is hilarious when you are talking to aunt mom and cousin dad, but the wider world might have something else to say. And if they have not learned that lesson before they begin spouting in a public forum, it is a crying shame they have to learn it in the harshest way possible. But there were plenty of chances to weed that out before they began to bandy about slurs and threats. And in the real world, the longer you live without that lesson, the harder the lesson becomes.

Demyx wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

Ha, then maybe that's where the disconnect was. I (and probably Demyx) totally agree with confronting and shaming racists. Just using the general public to do it as opposed to doing it yourself or just specifically drawing it out to the target's social circle is a huge risk.

My problem is when they're publishing personal info. That page doesn't publish Bobby Jindal's address or phone number, implying you should go harass him.

I would have zero problem with this blog if they weren't publishing addresses and such.

To be fair, they're only republishing what the people themselves have already published. Looking at the page Google has cached, they only include whatever was already listed on their profiles for public viewing.

Seth wrote:

They're only copying and pasting from public venues, though. No one is being hacked or anything. If I say that my phone number is 616-555-7666 here, and then say "btw I hate malaria," I don't think I have a right to be surprised or mad when my first name and phone number show up on a pro-malaria web site.

Scantily-clad wife pics or you're getting mosquito pizzas in some sexy insulated pizza sleeves.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Seth wrote:

They're only copying and pasting from public venues, though. No one is being hacked or anything. If I say that my phone number is 616-555-7666 here, and then say "btw I hate malaria," I don't think I have a right to be surprised or mad when my first name and phone number show up on a pro-malaria web site.

Scantily-clad wife pics or you're getting mosquito pizzas in some sexy insulated pizza sleeves.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

When I am looking at OnTheIssues.org entry for Bobby Jindal in the other thread over there, where they aggregate all his utterances of touchy subjects, is it an instance of a harrassment?

Those aren't just touchy subjects. Those are political subjects. Him being governor and a rising start (or at least one not falling as fast as the others) in the GOP, I think it's pretty clear that it's about as far from harassment as you can get while still aggregating what someone has said.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

When I am looking at OnTheIssues.org entry for Bobby Jindal in the other thread over there, where they aggregate all his utterances of touchy subjects, is it an instance of a harrassment?

Those aren't just touchy subjects. Those are political subjects. Him being governor and a rising start (or at least one not falling as fast as the others) in the GOP, I think it's pretty clear that it's about as far from harassment as you can get while still aggregating what someone has said.

Yopu mean advocating the association of a president of United States is no a political subject?

Myself, I really don't have a well defined opinion one way or the other, and I am very interested in where does this discussion end up. On one hand, I kind of agree that posting home addresses or phone numbers of these dumbasses is wrong. On the other hand, reading their posts, I have a hard time working up any kind of compassion towards them for being so "wronged". I probably would have no issues whatsoever with that Thumbler page just listing names and towns or states ("Racist J. Dumbass, Lower Junction, MO") but dropping ther phones/addresses.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Myself, I really don't have a well defined opinion one way or the other, and I am very interested in where does this discussion end up. On one hand, I kind of agree that posting home addresses or phone numbers of these dumbasses is wrong. On the other hand, reading their posts, I have a hard time working up any kind of compassion towards them for being so "wronged". I probably would have no issues whatsoever with that Thumbler page just listing names and towns or states ("Racist J. Dumbass, Lower Junction, MO") but dropping ther phones/addresses.

+1.

Prederick wrote:

Racism is hard. If it wasn't, we'd have fixed it by now.

That's a bit of a stretch, Prederick. Too little time has passed from when racism was open and blatant throughout the country, a little more than two generations. That's simply not enough time for racism to be driven from our society, especially when it's based on ideas and concepts that have been around for centuries and have embedded themselves in elements of our society.

That being said, we have made loads of progress as a society in alleviating racism, especially in younger generations, and, for older generations, making it clear that it isn't socially acceptable in the least.

Public shaming is an essential tool in teaching folks with racist ideas that their ideas are not appropriate for a multicultural nation that is founded on the very lofty goal of treating everyone as an equal. Either those people do some thinking and change their ways or they stop spouting ignorant sh*t in public because there's real social consequences. I don't care because either way society wins: either someone stops being a racist or they're severely hindered in spreading their hate to others.

KingGorilla wrote:

Society turning a blind eye to these distasteful activities seems a breach of the social contract to me when their own communities fail to challenge them on those views. I see it not only as a right, as high as a duty for society to correct where their own family and peer groups have failed.

Yup. When I was growing up every mom and grandmother on the block would keep an eye on us kids. If I did something I shouldn't have there was a damn good chance that when I got home my mom would be waiting for me with the wooden spoon because someone saw me and called my mom. I hated it at the time, but it also kept me from doing things that I shouldn't have.

This is just turning the Internet into that network of moms and grandmas and that's not a bad thing.

Hypatian wrote:

Some of us see this chain as "Person expresses sentiment X. Person is put in a list and has their name broadcast about. Person suffers reprisals." And to us, we don't care what X is, because we know that there are an awful lot of values for X which we think are perfectly fine sentiments, and that people lose their jobs over. Like supporting gay rights. Or opposing racism. Or whatever. The fact that in this specific case the sentiment expressed is vile doesn't matter, because we believe that the overall pattern of "public shaming by broadcasting information about people you may barely know" to "reprisals against people you may barely know based on the public shaming from people you may barely know" is a seriously bad thing.

I'm not sure I understand your position, especially because you yourself admitted that there are laws in place that would protect you if you were outed as a transgender. And there are other laws on the books that prevent the same for other minority groups.

That means the entire basis of your argument--that publicly shaming racists is bad because the same could happen to other minority groups--is on a shaky foundation because there are laws preventing people from taking that kind of action against those groups. That's not to say that it would be all sunshine and lollipops, but there would be serious consequences.

Jolly Bill wrote:

It's the act of BROADCAST public shaming I find wrong, not public shaming. And yes, that includes failbook and buzzfeed. I find them distasteful as well.

The internet is a very, very big place so it's a massive stretch to say that having someone's name posted on a Tumblr is broadcasting. Broadcasting would be figuring out that person's entire social network--both public and private--and then telling everyone that that person is a racist.

The only list what the dumbasses themselves have listed on the accounts they're using. All of the ones on the cached page are just name, town, & state because that's all the people listed.

What is the difference between this website and a person saying something prejudiced on a TV broadcast(which usually gives some identity information) that gets recorded and spread around via Youtube?

I'm not seeing a functional difference, past the organization into a single website. These things are being posted into the public space, much like a TV broadcast, article, radio show, podcast, or letter to the editor, correct? These are not secret recordings or friends-only FB posts, these are world-readable.

Caveat: I have not gone to the website itself yet, as I'm at work. If they are listing the actual home addresses or specific contact info beyond the account name, that is more problematic. To draw a parallel, identifying abortion doctors and the clinics they work at is fine(that is the same level of information you would get looking for any sort of specialist, on their own website), the home addresses and such is very much not.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

When I am looking at OnTheIssues.org entry for Bobby Jindal in the other thread over there, where they aggregate all his utterances of touchy subjects, is it an instance of a harrassment?

Those aren't just touchy subjects. Those are political subjects. Him being governor and a rising start (or at least one not falling as fast as the others) in the GOP, I think it's pretty clear that it's about as far from harassment as you can get while still aggregating what someone has said.

You mean advocating the association of a president of United States is not a political subject?

Without even getting into that, you mean these people are politicians? If so, aggregate away! Don't forget the first half of what I said: he's a politician. It's not just about the subject, it's about the connection of the subject to the person.

Kraint wrote:

What is the difference between this website and a person saying something prejudiced on a TV broadcast(which usually gives some identity information) that gets recorded and spread around via Youtube?

I'm not seeing a functional difference, past the organization into a single website. These things are being posted into the public space, much like a TV broadcast, article, radio show, podcast, or letter to the editor, correct? These are not secret recordings or friends-only FB posts, these are world-readable.

I feel like that's a false dichotomy, that everything is either you on the evening news, or you writing in your private journal. I understand that for the purpose of law enforcement it has to be that way sometimes, but I still feel like that's losing a middle ground that is important to well-functioning society: stuff that's not broadcast, but isn't private either.

KingGorilla wrote:

And I think that is what it comes down, for me OG. Some people might see this as counter bullying on the part of the internet. While others of us are seeing it as the internet community stepping up in the same way communities did before the internet to put kids in line, put people in line who stepped out of norms and mores.

Yeah...I don't have a very high opinion of those communities and the job they did putting kids in line, so that might explain some of the disagreement.

And I think that is what it comes down, for me OG. Some people might see this as counter bullying on the part of the internet. While others of us are seeing it as the internet community stepping up in the same way communities did before the internet to put kids in line, put people in line who stepped out of norms and mores.

And I think that there is something to say of another psychology at work here. A person's own or our own Twitter, Facebook, Blogs are seen as private and personal, those from outside as seen as wider and broad. I am stating that by putting these words on your Twitter or Facebook profile you already broadcast this to the world at large, to the web, and any response is in kind.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I feel like that's a false dichotomy, that everything is either you on the evening news, or you writing in your private journal. I understand that for the purpose of law enforcement it has to be that way sometimes, but I still feel like that's losing a middle ground that is important to well-functioning society: stuff that's not broadcast, but isn't private either.

The counterpoint is that there are things that, when brought up in what is intended to be a limited company, can and should be elevated to the public. Someone who makes a series of really offensive jokes about another gender/race/person could deservedly have their friends/spouses/associates informed by the direct recipients of those words.

While I get your position, I don't think this scenario fits. I personally view the blasting of these statements into the wild, with your own name attached, is the same as broadcasting them. That is the nature of the internet. If these things were intended for a limited audience, then there should be some attempt to limit exposure - for example, making your facebook page friends-only. I could draw another parallel to having what one claims to be a private phone call in a public space, while screaming your side at the top of your lungs. At that point, you've given up the right to be offended or surprised that other people are listening in on your conversation.

KingGorilla wrote:

While others of us are seeing it as the internet community stepping up in the same way communities did before the internet to put kids in line, put people in line who stepped out of norms and mores.

That probably explains some of the fundamental disconnect. Putting people in line who step out of norms and mores can sometimes be positive, but it's also a major justification behind things like prohibiting gay marriage, keeping women out of traditional men's roles, etc.

I mean, up until recently, blatant racism WAS society's norm. It was only because people stepped out of line that we got to where we are today.

And the comparisons of "the internet" to local communites, or to moms and grandmas as OG did above, is pretty hilarious. Yeah, I love the internet, but places like tumblr and Reddit are not even remotely like your parents keeping you in line.

Hypatian wrote:

Uh.

There are laws. In my city. In my county. Not in the majority of my state. [em]Way[/em] not in the majority of the U.S.

And in America, where companies can fire you for nearly any reason except those few prohibited by law, such laws do very little. If someone wants to fire their employee for being trans, all they have to do is think of some other reason why they could be plausibly laid off. It's unfortunately not hard.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your position, especially because you yourself admitted that there are laws in place that would protect you if you were outed as a transgender. And there are other laws on the books that prevent the same for other minority groups.

Uh.

There are laws. In my city. In my county. Not in the majority of my state. [em]Way[/em] not in the majority of the U.S.

And of course, even if there's protection, there's still the hurdle of demonstrating that it was discriminatory action and not just that they decided they didn't like you this week (assuming an at-will state.)

Demyx wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

While others of us are seeing it as the internet community stepping up in the same way communities did before the internet to put kids in line, put people in line who stepped out of norms and mores.

That probably explains some of the fundamental disconnect. Putting people in line who step out of norms and mores can sometimes be positive, but it's also a major justification behind things like prohibiting gay marriage, keeping women out of traditional men's roles, etc.

I mean, up until recently, blatant racism WAS society's norm. It was only because people stepped out of line that we got to where we are today.

And the comparisons of "the internet" to local communites, or to moms and grandmas as OG did above, is pretty hilarious. Yeah, I love the internet, but places like tumblr and Reddit are not even remotely like your parents keeping you in line.

Gorilla, I have to join in with Demyx here. Hanging the Scarlet Letter on these kids doesn't seem like the right solution. The issue isn't what the person has said; the issue is this being considered a way to deal with ANY disagreement in the private sphere.

I want to say something here, and I don't want it to turn into a sh*tstorm. If it does, I'm sorry, but I've been reading this thread as it grows and this concept just keeps getting stronger and I think it's important.

One thing that jumps out if you look at the groups of people talking here is the ones who are speaking up with the strongest reservations are those who have cause to fear his kind of repercussions already. Just by virtue of being who we are and having that fact made more public, we have a heightened cause for concern.

I'm openly female, and I'm obviously older. Outside of my safe-zones like here and PAX I get ridiculous amounts of static just by virtue of that fact. I went through this for the cardinal sin of suggesting that people should grow the heck up online (it was this article). It got Slashdotted, and went other places as well. That did not go well. My children got crap for it at school. I received a bunch of rude email.

It went farther than "shaming". A person I know professionally printed it and sent it to my boss along with a letter suggesting I should be fired because I was obviously moonlighting. Luckily for me, not only do we not have a clause prohibiting moonlighting in my contract, my boss actually suggests it because he knows he can't pay us what we're worth so as long as we're not using company equipment and our day job is getting done he doesn't care. When he got the letter, he took me out to coffee to celebrate, in fact. If he had been my previous boss, I would have been fired. Because of this, I don't go to that particular industry website anymore.

At least in my case, thinking about someone going through this for any reason makes me feel a little sick to my stomach. So does this kind of racist, bigoted behavior. I agree that something should be done. I just don't think this is the way. There's way too many ways this can be used for nefarious things.

Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I feel like that's a false dichotomy, that everything is either you on the evening news, or you writing in your private journal. I understand that for the purpose of law enforcement it has to be that way sometimes, but I still feel like that's losing a middle ground that is important to well-functioning society: stuff that's not broadcast, but isn't private either.

The counterpoint is that there are things that, when brought up in what is intended to be a limited company, can and should be elevated to the public. Someone who makes a series of really offensive jokes about another gender/race/person could deservedly have their friends/spouses/associates informed by the direct recipients of those words.

Okay, but then we're beyond public vs. private. Then we're saying even if you're keeping things private, people should repeat what you said to a larger audience (obviously not talking about someone reporting dangerous behavior, just ignorant opinions and such).

While I get your position, I don't think this scenario fits. I personally view the blasting of these statements into the wild, with your own name attached, is the same as broadcasting them. That is the nature of the internet. If these things were intended for a limited audience, then there should be some attempt to limit exposure - for example, making your facebook page friends-only. I could draw another parallel to having what one claims to be a private phone call in a public space, while screaming your side at the top of your lungs. At that point, you've given up the right to be offended or surprised that other people are listening in on your conversation.

I guess I just disagree this is 'broadcasting' them, at least to the point you can make an analogy to those things you listed. I also think you're slipping from being offended or surprised that someone is drawing attention to what you said, and just people listening in on your conversation because you've made it hard for them to ignore you. Duoae said earlier in the thread "You want to fight and challenge these people? Do it in the medium they used in the first place" and I think there's a lot of wisdom to that.

Demyx wrote:

And the comparisons of "the internet" to local communites, or to moms and grandmas as OG did above, is pretty hilarious. Yeah, I love the internet, but places like tumblr and Reddit are not even remotely like your parents keeping you in line.

Ha, very true: this is more like some stranger at the bus depot keeping you in line. We are kinda pretending the internet is waaaay more of a community than it actually is, aren't we? There's a pretty big difference between someone who knows you personally and has a positive connection to you and concern with your welfare, and someone from the internet who is a complete stranger without any reciprocal connection to you at all.

momgamer wrote:
Demyx wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

While others of us are seeing it as the internet community stepping up in the same way communities did before the internet to put kids in line, put people in line who stepped out of norms and mores.

That probably explains some of the fundamental disconnect. Putting people in line who step out of norms and mores can sometimes be positive, but it's also a major justification behind things like prohibiting gay marriage, keeping women out of traditional men's roles, etc.

I mean, up until recently, blatant racism WAS society's norm. It was only because people stepped out of line that we got to where we are today.

And the comparisons of "the internet" to local communites, or to moms and grandmas as OG did above, is pretty hilarious. Yeah, I love the internet, but places like tumblr and Reddit are not even remotely like your parents keeping you in line.

Gorilla, I have to join in with Demyx here. Hanging the Scarlet Letter on these kids doesn't seem like the right solution. The issue isn't what the person has said; the issue is this being considered a way to deal with ANY disagreement in the private sphere.

I want to say something here, and I don't want it to turn into a sh*tstorm. If it does, I'm sorry, but I've been reading this thread as it grows and this concept just keeps getting stronger and I think it's important.

One thing that jumps out if you look at the groups of people talking here is the ones who are speaking up with the strongest reservations are those who have cause to fear his kind of repercussions already. Just by virtue of being who we are and having that fact made more public, we have a heightened cause for concern.

I'm openly female, and I'm obviously older. Outside of my safe-zones like here and PAX I get ridiculous amounts of static just by virtue of that fact. I went through this for the cardinal sin of suggesting that people should grow the heck up online (it was this article). It got Slashdotted, and went other places as well. That did not go well. My children got crap for it at school. I received a bunch of rude email.

It went farther than "shaming". A person I know professionally printed it and sent it to my boss along with a letter suggesting I should be fired because I was obviously moonlighting. Luckily for me, not only do we not have a clause prohibiting moonlighting in my contract, my boss actually suggests it because he knows he can't pay us what we're worth so as long as we're not using company equipment and our day job is getting done he doesn't care. When he got the letter, he took me out to coffee to celebrate, in fact. If he had been my previous boss, I would have been fired. Because of this, I don't go to that particular industry website anymore.

At least in my case, thinking about someone going through this for any reason makes me feel a little sick to my stomach. So does this kind of racist, bigoted behavior. I agree that something should be done. I just don't think this is the way. There's way too many ways this can be used for nefarious things.

I'm not arguing that this is the best way to handle the tweets and statuses, just that it is a valid way, and should not be made illegal/prohibited. Anytime someone puts their personal information online it should be done with the assumption that someone else could use it for nefarious purposes.

Demyx wrote:

That probably explains some of the fundamental disconnect. Putting people in line who step out of norms and mores can sometimes be positive, but it's also a major justification behind things like prohibiting gay marriage, keeping women out of traditional men's roles, etc.

I mean, up until recently, blatant racism WAS society's norm. It was only because people stepped out of line that we got to where we are today.

We got to where we are today because racism is fundamentally in conflict with both the social contract laid out in our country's founding documents and the religious beliefs most Americans follow. It's the same with gay marriage and gender roles.

That's why you're really not going to convince me that we need to coddle and protect racists because maybe, someday, perhaps those same ignorant f*cks might use public shaming against other groups. That's also because public shaming isn't going to work against a group who thinks their basic human rights are being violated by whatever the social norms may be at the time. There really just isn't any comparison between someone fighting for their right to be considered an equal member of society and someone who is just filled with hate, ignorance, and fear.

The other reason I'm really not worried is because our society has radically shifted in recent decades and there is significant social inertia behind all forms of equality. Yes, racism used to be society's norm. Used to be is the key phrase. That's a damn impressive social transition in just two generations. And if you look at the poll numbers for younger generations you'll see that they are a hell of a lot closer to a post racial America than the Boomers or the Silent Generation.

It's the same for gay marriage. Yes, elements of our society fought against gay marriage (and they had some success). But they are on the losing side of that debate. Just look at the poll numbers for gay marriage. We've recently crossed the line where most Americans are in favor of gay marriage now and those numbers are even more in favor of gay marriage for younger generations. And that trend has been born out in Novembers elections with voters approving gay marriage laws in multiple states. Outside of a few troglodyte states, I doubt we'll see any more laws passed banning same sex marriage and, in fact, we'll see a slow, but steady, overturning of any existing laws.

Demyx wrote:

And the comparisons of "the internet" to local communites, or to moms and grandmas as OG did above, is pretty hilarious. Yeah, I love the internet, but places like tumblr and Reddit are not even remotely like your parents keeping you in line.

You're right...and you're wrong. I think we're still figuring out the role and impact of the Internet and social media in our lives.

Does members of Reddit grabbing their electronic torches and pitchforks actually do anything? I honestly don't know. I'm sure the person whose in their cross-hairs doesn't like the feeling and regrets doing whatever set Redditors off, but I doubt it forces them to have A Christmas Carol-type transformation.

On the other hand, I think it's useful to have every member of someone's social network know when they've said something racist or hateful. That's because there's very likely someone in their extended social network who is of that race or who is gay or who is a member of whatever minority group the original poster said something about. That, as they say, makes sh*t real and allows the poster to be confronted about his or her beliefs and either double down on their ignorance and hate or accept that perhaps they are wrong, at least when it comes to one person. And it also has the very beneficial side effect of bursting the social bubble of sub-groups where racist or hateful things are accepted (or not challenged), which helps disrupt the spread of anti-social beliefs.

Hypatian wrote:

Uh.

There are laws. In my city. In my county. Not in the majority of my state. [em]Way[/em] not in the majority of the U.S.

And of course, even if there's protection, there's still the hurdle of demonstrating that it was discriminatory action and not just that they decided they didn't like you this week (assuming an at-will state.)

You're absolutely right.

But there *are* laws in your city, your county, and in parts of your state. And, in a few years or maybe a decade or two, there will be laws in many more cities, counties, and states. And there's going to be companies that get sued for violating those laws, which will have the effect of making it that much harder for companies to trump up reasons to fire you. And even then, you can still sue the f*ck out of them in civil court (and very likely win or get a nice settlement).

Again, there is a social inertia behind those laws, which means it's less and less likely that there's ever any chance that someone is going to start a Tumblr outing your for your gender identity and, even if they do, there's a reasonable chance it might not turn your life completely upside down.

Jolly Bill wrote:

There is a big difference between rebuking someone for telling you a racist joke in person while waiting for the bus, and then getting on the bus and yelling at everyone on the bus that the person is racist. There are levels of response and we are just trying to point out that the BROADCAST level is too f*cking far for offhand comments jerks make on their facebook or twitter feeds.

I'm completely in agreement with this.

Taking disparate public information, collating and collecting them in aggregate is completely different from them existing in their isolation.

If the person has linked their publicly contactable information with their twitter account and that is right there with their statement then, fine. I'm okay with that. Going on a witch hunt and discovering the rest of their personal lives (if accurate) from disparate sources is not okay - in the same sense that it's not okay for the police to be doing wide-ranging searches without a remit I don't see how it's suddenly okay for a vigilante to be doing the same.

No one addressed my previous post so I'll assume that I was 100% agreed with and correct. That's the power of the internet/human psychology for you...

OG_slinger wrote:

You're right...and you're wrong. I think we're still figuring out the role and impact of the Internet and social media in our lives.

Does members of Reddit grabbing their electronic torches and pitchforks actually do anything? I honestly don't know. I'm sure the person whose in their cross-hairs doesn't like the feeling and regrets doing whatever set Redditors off, but I doubt it forces them to have A Christmas Carol-type transformation.

On the other hand, I think it's useful to have every member of someone's social network know when they've said something racist or hateful. That's because there's very likely someone in their extended social network who is of that race or who is gay or who is a member of whatever minority group the original poster said something about. That, as they say, makes sh*t real and allows the poster to be confronted about his or her beliefs and either double down on their ignorance and hate or accept that perhaps they are wrong, at least when it comes to one person. And it also has the very beneficial side effect of bursting the social bubble of sub-groups where racist or hateful things are accepted (or not challenged), which helps disrupt the spread of anti-social beliefs.

And yet, turned around 180 degrees... if racism and other populist ideologies were allowed to do exactly what has been done in this instance would you feel more safe and secure because you were the target of the "popular" opinion?

There are different ways of dealing with this sh*t... and this is far from the best one or two...

Duoae wrote:

And yet, turned around 180 degrees... if racism and other populist ideologies were allowed to do exactly what has been done in this instance would you feel more safe and secure because you were the target of the "popular" opinion?

That's a massive, massive "if".

Seriously, what are the odds that racism is going to experience a big comeback in America? As the last election showed, white males have kinda lost their mojo and the demographics of the country are such that there isn't going to be another single group in the majority for, well, ever.

I'll admit there is an outside chance that a populist ideology might catch on, but there's very little chance for it to spread outside of whatever sub-group spawned it. Just look at the Tea Partiers. That group only appealed to old white Christians. And while they did get representatives elected to Congress and pushed crazy laws against abortion and the like, their power was limited to a minority stake of one political party. And, beyond that, the last election saw the craziest elements of the Tea Party voted out of power.

Could there be another populist ideology that takes root and sweeps the nation? Sure. Anything is possible. But it's highly unlikely. And even looking back through our history every populist movement--from Father Coughlin to McCarthyism to the Religious Right--has had a finite lifespan and tends to burn itself out. And the bigger and more diverse we get as a country the less likelihood there is of any one populist ideology sweeping the nation.

Duoae wrote:

There are different ways of dealing with this sh*t... and this is far from the best one or two...

I disagree. The Internet has been a boon to racists because it allows them to connect with other racists and reinforce each other's beliefs. Anything we can do to disrupt that is a good thing for our society. Letting them alone to baste in their own hate juices isn't. We just have to look at the FOX News crowd to see the damage that an echo chamber can cause.

Duoae wrote:

No one addressed my previous post so I'll assume that I was 100% agreed with and correct. That's the power of the internet/human psychology for you...

Skimmer... ; D

OG_slinger wrote:
Duoae wrote:

There are different ways of dealing with this sh*t... and this is far from the best one or two...

I disagree. The Internet has been a boon to racists because it allows them to connect with other racists and reinforce each other's beliefs. Anything we can do to disrupt that is a good thing for our society. Letting them alone to baste in their own hate juices isn't. We just have to look at the FOX News crowd to see the damage that an echo chamber can cause.

Except the internet has been a boon to *everyone* not just racists. Everyone from DudeBros into My Little Pony to middle-aged housewives into slashfic has benefited from the 'echo chamber' aspect of the internet. My question is whether that act of disruption when we're talking about stuff like public shaming and informing on others to real-world people won't have a chilling effect on all those times the internet is used to reinforce *positive* beliefs.

CheezePavilion wrote:

My question is whether that act of disruption when we're talking about stuff like public shaming and informing on others to real-world people won't have a chilling effect on all those times the internet is used to reinforce *positive* beliefs.

Judging by 4chan, Reddit, and every other online community, no. Those places already have thriving communities of people who think DudeBros are totes awesome *and* people who think they're douche bags. Same with My Little Pony fans and middle-aged housewives who are into slashfic.

That's because most people understand that your opinion on Dude Bros is just that: an opinion on something that's essentially inconsequential. People aren't born Dude Bros and, with a pathetic exception or two, likely don't consider Dude Bro the core of their self-identity.

It's like having an opinion on what the best flavor of ice cream is. You might think that it's Rocky Road while I might think it's classic vanilla. There is no wrong answer because it just ice cream and my dislike of Rocky Road doesn't subtract from your enjoyment nor are you going to lose your job or status in society if I out you on something so inconsequential. Nor am I going to think you are sub-human for your choice in ice cream and I'm certainly not going to discuss with other vanilla lovers how we can kick off the ice cream flavor wars to once and for all purge the world of all you filthy taste corrupters.