Racism and internet vigilantism

In short, some of us believe that this is a sh*tty thing to do, and some of us believe that this is a perfectly fine thing to do. The arguments for "it's a sh*tty thing to do" boil down to "people do this to folks who aren't assholes all the time, and those of you who do it to assholes give other assholes evidence that it's an okay tactic to use against people they think are immoral", and the arguments for sum up as "it's perfectly fine" amount to "this tactic is easier than the alternatives".

Or have I missed something on the pro side, other than "even though you guys have suggested plenty of alternatives, we think that if you take this away it's removing a vital tool against bigots"?

Yay.

As an added note: In honor of this year's Transgender Day of Remembrance, coming up on the 20th, I'd just like to point out that the idea that "things are getting better, laws are getting passed, so it's going to be okay" is incredibly cold comfort for those who are at risk simply for being who they are.

CheezePavilion wrote:
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

Damnit! Caught in the act!

Duoae wrote:

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.

This is exactly how this tumblr operates. The only personal information being posted is what the person has already linked to their twitter/facebook account. Either in their profile information, or in their tweets/updates.

Also, the site is back up, sort of. It's not the same site, since someone else remade it. None of the original posts are there either. The new operator says that if anyone whose information has been posted wishes to respond, they can contact them through the site and they'll post the comment on the site, and if the have a compelling (to the new operator) reason, they'll remove the post about them. This should really be plastered at the top of every page or on an "About" page (they currently don't have one at all).

Ok, took a good hard look at the new site and noticed a few things I'd like to address:

1 It's immediately obvious that this site is at least in part politically motivated. It's all about shaming those who oppose Obama, albeit oppose him in very hateful and stupid ways. This site might have value in my eyes if it exposed many different examples of racism (including racism against whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc. Id especially have respect for it if it uncovered secret members of hate groups or racist cops/politicians who abuse their positions of power.

2 I don't think the punishment always fit the crime as hardcore neo nazis with swashtikas on their walls are treated the same way as frat boys making jokes about keeping the White House white. There's a reason why level 1 sex offenders are treated very differently from level 3 offenders when it comes to publicity. In my experience there are different kinds of racist. Some are dangerous to society as their hatred is all encompassing avoid they are more than willing to turn to violence to promote their views. Hate to say it but these kind of guys are not going to be swayed by public shaming. Then there are those who act racist in very specific scenarios. They may fling racial slurs because they are upset at the election and see Obama as a danger to their values. But these guys may be totally cool to their Black neighbors and coworkers, love Jay Z and Beyonce, etc. These are the kinds of people that honestly can be reached.

I think the political streak is due to anti-black racism against Obama being the initial reason the original tumblr was created. Racism against other groups should get put up, but it's up to other people to submit it. Investigating potential racists / secret members of hate groups is something they shouldn't be doing, or at least not posting them to the same tumblr, as it could create the impression that everyone listed on the tumblr are also secret members of hate groups. They shouldn't be doing any sort of investigating of anyone, just posting the racist crap and information the racist made public about themselves.

As for your second point, it all depends on how the list is used. It's certainly not the best way to reach out to these people and help them not be racist, but it at least ought to show them the consequences of being racist in public. The former is the better goal, but I'll settle for the latter.

Follow-up for what it's worth: Herr Meatstick is still employed, probably by a contractor or subsidiary of the power company (who deny that he is or has ever been an employee).

This is posted on the site:

On a separate note, this blog had to be taken down because of threats made to the subjects. Most people are doing the right thing, but for those who aren’t, if I get credible reports of threats, I will have to take down this blog. So if you want racists to be exposed, do not be threatening or intimidating.They deserve to lose their jobs and scholarships, but not threats of any kind.

“I hope he gets shot” is not an explicit threat, but it’s still unacceptable.

I accept the validity of Hypatian's reasoning, but don't agree with the sentiment. ("At first they came for the dudebros, but I was not a dudebro, so I said nothing...") Still, though, looking at Meatstick's Facebook page, I see him as only an offensive kid, and I'll let him hatefully raise his child in peace.

Saw this today and it made me think of this thread.

I don't think she should have her life ruined over it, everybody makes mistakes, even really, really stupid ones, but assuming they hurt no-one, they shouldn't define you forever (for instance, at this point I just feel a mixture of pity and sadness for Michael Richards, and i'm black).

HOWEVER, that does not excuse what she did. And by "what she did" I don't mean any kind of universal morality, but that she did something unnecessary and hugely inflammatory, and then posted herself doing it on a public forum. I don't think a group dedicated to getting her fired is right, but if her employer fired her for representing the company in a horrendous light, and for clearly having atrocious judgement, i'm not bothered, it's their right.

Why, however, do so many people seem to believe that tacking on "it's just a joke" on the end of any inflammatory statement or gesture can or should protect them from any consequences from their statements or actions, and that anyone hurt or offended by what they did is to blame as they are "too sensitive" or "looking to be offended"? Facing repercussions for your actions is not a "thought crime", and no society on earth has ever run by the rule of "You can do/say whatever you want and never have to worry about any blow-back for it."

EDIT: Now, THIS can be called a gross violation of someone's freedom of speech, and could be described as "thought crime".

Prederick wrote:

Why, however, do so many people seem to believe that tacking on "it's just a joke" on the end of any inflammatory statement or gesture can or should protect them from any consequences from their statements or actions, and that anyone hurt or offended by what they did is to blame as they are "too sensitive" or "looking to be offended"? Facing repercussions for your actions is not a "thought crime", and no society on earth has ever run by the rule of "You can do/say whatever you want and never have to worry about any blow-back for it."

From the article:

"Whoa whoa whoa... wait," Stone wrote on October 20th. "This is just us, being the douchebags that we are, challenging authority in general. Much like the pic posted the night before, of me smoking right next to a no smoking sign. OBVIOUSLY we meant NO disrespect to people that serve or have served our country."

People aren't angry because she challenges the authority of signs. People are angry because they think she's disrespecting the Tomb and what it stands for/is associated with. That's one case where the 'joke' thing comes in. It's not an excuse for what someone did, it redefines what they did in the first place. It's not necessarily a 'get out of jail free' card, but there's a difference between offending people because you picked the wrong subject to make a joke out of, and offending people because you embrace an offensive belief on that subject and made it known to people.

Of course, that brings up the question of whether a person didn't realize their 'joke' would be offensive because they actually DO embrace an offensive belief on the subject to some degree like when you see someone do something so dumb try to call it a joke, and you think "there's no way you're that stupid that you'd think that joke would ever work."

The error for Lindsay Stone -- and, incidentally, every person originally aggregated onto the tumblr page this thread started -- was not in the action committed. It was in publicizing it to a world audience.

It's obvious that we as a species are not yet used to having the ability to reach an audience 100 times greater than Walter Cronkite did, with just a few clicks of their phone. Those behind the curve will get punished for it, apparently.

I wonder if it took our species this long to deal with the camera.

Seth wrote:

The error for Lindsay Stone -- and, incidentally, every person originally aggregated onto the tumblr page this thread started -- was not in the action committed. It was in publicizing it to a world audience.

It's obvious that we as a species are not yet used to having the ability to reach an audience 100 times greater than Walter Cronkite did, with just a few clicks of their phone. Those behind the curve will get punished for it, apparently.

I wonder if it took our species this long to deal with the camera.

Considering that some people were afraid cameras would steal their soul, I'd say yes. MySpace isn't even 10 years old. Facebook was limited to college & high school students until 2006.

There's also a gulf between "private" and "public" where you get "sure this comment is public, but only ten people ever look at my Facebook". And that's true... until it isn't.

I routinely say controversial political and religious things in "public" because I'm only talking to my boyfriend and no one around me is paying attention to my conversation when I'm just walking down the street or standing in a crowded train station. Twitter and Facebook can see the same way. Sure, it's public, but only a handful of friends and family ever look at it, right?

If someone took a video of me talking politics in a train station and mailed it to my (conservative) family, I would think that's a pretty nasty move, even though that conversation was technically "public".

On Facebook you're the one choosing to preserve things for posterity, though. Photo albums and wall posts aren't fleeting like Facebook chat (or face-to-face conversations).

clover wrote:

On Facebook you're the one choosing to preserve things for posterity, though. Photo albums and wall posts aren't fleeting like Facebook chat (or face-to-face conversations).

Absolutely true, but I think it's asking a lot of teens to consider "preserving things for posterity" -- even the most responsible teens sometimes run into issues with not really considering how things will look when they're 26 years old and trying to get a corporate job.

Demyx wrote:

There's also a gulf between "private" and "public" where you get "sure this comment is public, but only ten people ever look at my Facebook". And that's true... until it isn't.

I routinely say controversial political and religious things in "public" because I'm only talking to my boyfriend and no one around me is paying attention to my conversation when I'm just walking down the street or standing in a crowded train station. Twitter and Facebook can see the same way. Sure, it's public, but only a handful of friends and family ever look at it, right?

If someone took a video of me talking politics in a train station and mailed it to my (conservative) family, I would think that's a pretty nasty move, even though that conversation was technically "public".

But in this scenario, you are the one taking evidence of yourself talking politics and leaving that video on the doorstep to Gawker. Technically for the analogy to be accurate, you're putting it on an international tv station and hoping no one actually watches.

It really, really doesn't take much to lock one's facebook profile down to very private....and it takes even less effort to just have those conversations via PM or any of a million other non-public methods.

Demyx wrote:
clover wrote:

On Facebook you're the one choosing to preserve things for posterity, though. Photo albums and wall posts aren't fleeting like Facebook chat (or face-to-face conversations).

Absolutely true, but I think it's asking a lot of teens to consider "preserving things for posterity" -- even the most responsible teens sometimes run into issues with not really considering how things will look when they're 26 years old and trying to get a corporate job.

Which is why all this is one of the challenges to parents, just as much as talks about sex, drugs, and other critical issues. It's our job to make sure our children realize that the internet is forever. It's not fair, but that doesn't really matter.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Which is why all this is one of the challenges to parents, just as much as talks about sex, drugs, and other critical issues. It's our job to make sure our children realize that the internet is forever. It's not fair, but that doesn't really matter.

Personally, I think this is important enough an issue that it needs to be taught in public schools. Leaving it up to the parents is problematic when you're talking about new technology which many older people are not familiar with.

Seth wrote:
Demyx wrote:

There's also a gulf between "private" and "public" where you get "sure this comment is public, but only ten people ever look at my Facebook". And that's true... until it isn't.

I routinely say controversial political and religious things in "public" because I'm only talking to my boyfriend and no one around me is paying attention to my conversation when I'm just walking down the street or standing in a crowded train station. Twitter and Facebook can see the same way. Sure, it's public, but only a handful of friends and family ever look at it, right?

If someone took a video of me talking politics in a train station and mailed it to my (conservative) family, I would think that's a pretty nasty move, even though that conversation was technically "public".

But in this scenario, you are the one taking evidence of yourself talking politics and leaving that video on the doorstep to Gawker. Technically for the analogy to be accurate, you're putting it on an international tv station and hoping no one actually watches.

For the analogy to be *really* accurate, that would have to be a station among hundreds of millions of other stations. You're right that we've got the ability to reach an audience 100 times greater than Walter Cronkite did, but we've also got far more competitors than he did, too. That I think is a big part of the issue: this isn't straight causation or anything approaching predictability. It's a lot more like a lottery you really don't want to win.

And for the analogy to be *super really* accurate, you'd have to wind up in a TV Guide that only lists a few channels of those hundreds of millions, then other channels report on your channel, and so on and so forth.

Prederick wrote:

Saw this today and it made me think of this thread.

I think it's dispicable that her employers even gave this the time of day.

Regardless of your personal views on who and/or what to respect (- all those things are transient: someone could post the same sort of crap at a Roman temple or something and it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow) the fact that other people's opinions of what I could do or say that might or might not offend them would result in my loss of livelihood or pretty much anything else that is unrelated to the thing in question is ridiculous.

For all we know she could have been the worst person at her job and won't be missed... or she could have been the lynch pin of the local operation or beloved by many people who they serve.

Imagine this was something like political speech whereby you decided you didn't like Romney because he was a stupid-head and then got fired because loads of far-right christians all came charging in - I'm pretty sure they can amass more than 4000 votes in such a short time period....

I think we are fast approaching a realization that in a world where everyone can write their opinions, no one's opinion matters.

Put your old white guy glasses on. People are writing you "letters" using scary words like boycott, and offended, and petition. To those old white guys the PTC still has power and relevance.

As the old white men die off, we will replace them with old white men and women who know that the internet is full of sh*t.

Seth wrote:

The error for Lindsay Stone -- and, incidentally, every person originally aggregated onto the tumblr page this thread started -- was not in the action committed. It was in publicizing it to a world audience.

It's obvious that we as a species are not yet used to having the ability to reach an audience 100 times greater than Walter Cronkite did, with just a few clicks of their phone. Those behind the curve will get punished for it, apparently.

I wonder if it took our species this long to deal with the camera.

I don't think it's comparable to the camera much. In the case of the camera, people initially were very careful because it was a permanent record was made where they could be held accountable. Here, the problem seems to be that people believe it shouldn't count or be considered for some reason.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:

The error for Lindsay Stone -- and, incidentally, every person originally aggregated onto the tumblr page this thread started -- was not in the action committed. It was in publicizing it to a world audience.

It's obvious that we as a species are not yet used to having the ability to reach an audience 100 times greater than Walter Cronkite did, with just a few clicks of their phone. Those behind the curve will get punished for it, apparently.

I wonder if it took our species this long to deal with the camera.

I don't think it's comparable to the camera much. In the case of the camera, people initially were very careful because it was a permanent record was made where they could be held accountable. Here, the problem seems to be that people believe it shouldn't count or be considered for some reason.

I think primarily the difference here is what people think "accountability" means. Are you accountable for your actions? Of course! Does this incident of stupidity mean you should possibly lose the respect (if you had any) of random strangers and people you know? Yes. Does this incident of stupidity mean you should possibly lose your job? No.

There are levels of responsibility and response to events.

If your actions outside of work in turn come back with consequences for your employer, they just need to shrug and keep you employed? The employer gets no say in whether they can determine that this is something that will blow over, or if it is an event that may lead to lost contracts, or in the case of a charity losing community support and donors?

Is this woman's right to be an ass worth those possible repercussions to innocent bystanders? If LIFE loses a future grant, their donors go down, and they cannot serve the community as well because she was kept on, is that OK?

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:

The error for Lindsay Stone -- and, incidentally, every person originally aggregated onto the tumblr page this thread started -- was not in the action committed. It was in publicizing it to a world audience.

It's obvious that we as a species are not yet used to having the ability to reach an audience 100 times greater than Walter Cronkite did, with just a few clicks of their phone. Those behind the curve will get punished for it, apparently.

I wonder if it took our species this long to deal with the camera.

I don't think it's comparable to the camera much. In the case of the camera, people initially were very careful because it was a permanent record was made where they could be held accountable. Here, the problem seems to be that people believe it shouldn't count or be considered for some reason.

It's not a perfect comparison (what is?), but you've got a technology that is making otherwise private moments public -- and permanent -- through ignorance / incompetence.

Is this woman's right to be an ass worth those possible repercussions to innocent bystanders? If LIFE loses a future grant, their donors go down, and they cannot serve the community as well because she was kept on, is that OK?

How far does this go, though? If my employer is a major vendor to Burger King, and my publicized trip to McDonald's causes them to lose BK as a client, is *that* OK?

I realize I'm muddying the waters here, but I'm genuinely curious. How much does our personal behavior, when documented either by ourselves or by others, should be able to harm us professionally?

(My answer is pretty simple -- whatever the employers say in their handbook. Problem being that gorram elastic clause. I can, for example, be terminated for maligning my employer on social media sites -- that is an explicit part in the handbook -- but it doesn't actually say anything about taking pictures of myself doing stupid crap like Lindsay, there.)

Okay I admit not getting where you stand -- are you saying that speech of any kind (pictures included) should be protected from punitive employer action?

Seth you are getting dangerously close to saying that an employer and employee need to develop some sort of contractual relationship. That is very unamerican. If, as I have been led to believe, having employment at will of both the employer and the employee serves both parties (at which I scoff), I am not sure how tilting that scale to employees in these sorts of areas is a net benefit.

I am not drawing a line. But you and others are trying to. Speaking at a NAMBLA conference is protected speech. Should being a NAMBLA member be grounds for discharge from a school? What if it is discovered that that same teacher went on a sex Holiday to Thailand? PETA takes an active role against the beef industry, Should being a speaker at a PETA conference be grounds for terminating someone from the Texas Beef Council? Do you extend that employee protection to actions taken by shareholders and officers at publicly traded companies? A lot of baseball players have been suspended after allegations of spousal abuse, how does that relate to throwing fast balls and hitting home runs? What sorts of positions are there where public, or personal, actions can and cannot affect your employment?

When you start drawing lines, putting bubbles around specific factors, you cannot be all encompassing. When you start carving out special areas, it gets very messy very fast. You are asking all employers, great and small, to come up with this previously unneeded code of conduct that needs to be very comprehensive. "Oh, your code of conduct at GM never said I could not take out a test car, drive to Reno, pick up 3 transvestite hookers and wreck the car on the side of the road, I am safe."

KingGorilla wrote:

I am not drawing a line. But you and others are trying to. Speaking at a NAMBLA conference is protected speech. Should being a NAMBLA member be grounds for discharge from a school? PETA takes an active role against the beef industry, Should being a speaker at a PETA conference be grounds for terminating someone from the Texas Beef Council? Do you extend that employee protection to actions taken by shareholders and officers at publicly traded companies? A lot of baseball players have been suspended after allegations of spousal abuse, how does that relate to throwing fast balls and hitting home runs? What sorts of positions are there where public, or personal, actions can and cannot affect your employment?

Thing is, in every one of those examples, the success of the enterprise in question is intrinsically linked with the perception of that enterprise in the public eye.

For instance, the business of baseball is not purely about being good at baseball. It's not. It's about marketability, and being good at baseball is *one* variable that feeds into that.

So yes, if your actions, that you mistakenly think are private but are actually public, affect your employers bottom line, why wouldn't they be able to take action against you?

I am saying Seth, the by and large terminable at will is a good thing. It is not at all the best thing for employees and workers. I think that requiring quasi contracts in the manner you are describing is wasteful of a company's resources. I am saying that if your actions outside of work or school have a reasonable chance to adversely reflect on that business or school, that business or school should be able to use that for grounds to fire you.

If you in turn have a good argument for a discriminatory firing based on political speech, bias, etc. then take it up with the EEOC.

KingGorilla wrote:

I am saying Seth, the by and large terminable at will is a good thing. It is not at all the best thing for employees and workers. I think that requiring quasi contracts in the manner you are describing is wasteful of a company's resources. I am saying that if your actions outside of work or school have a reasonable chance to adversely reflect on that business or school, that business or school should be able to use that for grounds to fire you.

If you in turn have a good argument for a discriminatory firing based on political speech, bias, etc. then take it up with the EEOC.

Well, in that situation, why do they need grounds to fire you in the first place? As long as their reason isn't discriminatory, it's just the same to fire someone for being a member of the Putting Babies on Spikes club as the Cute Pictures of Puppies club.

I wonder if the "legally permissible" and the "socially expected" arguments are getting their wires crossed here.

KingGorilla wrote:

If you in turn have a good argument for a discriminatory firing based on political speech, bias, etc. then take it up with the EEOC.

These are not things protected by the EEOC. You can't be fired (from a covered company) for being a woman. You can be fired for supporting gay marriage. Or being a Republican.

At will means there is not a reason, or bad behavior on your part. It also means that at any point you can look for and get a newer, different, better job.

If we are talking a situation where being terminable at will is a problem, I would think the better time would be spent on 4th quarter lay offs and not people who make fools of themselves leaking back to your charity. And certainly not making up this whimsy of somehow this woman may be fired for some sort of thought crime, anymore than the people who posted racist things about the president are being punished for thought crime.

EDIT: Actually Hypatian, Political affiliation is grounds to bring a discriminatory firing suit. And the EEOC has held that sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under prohibitions on sex discrimination.

http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherpro...

We could certainly have a separate talk about reforming at will status, capricious firings, etc.

I am just not sure if there is solid ground to stand on that a charity cannot fire someone whose actions online led to angry letters, and a facebook page calling for her termination. The same can be said of those people fired for making threatening statements and racist statements about Obama. These facebook pages had the schools and businesses at which these people worked.