Public shaming

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

I am a big proponent of healing through shaming and would like to know if there's any effective way to heal this woman.

[Being]

NEI

[GGT]

I am a big proponent of healing through shaming and would like to know if there's any effective way to heal this woman.

Should we shame you for spending so much time in Twitter, and linking almost every post you make to Twitter? Would that heal you from your addiction to Twitter?

[LittleFuzzy]

Everyone knows how often I disagree with GGT, particularly when it comes to posting behaviors. She has a point though. While I hesitate to throw around a word like addiction, there does seem to be an inordinate fixation. Of course, I also dislike Twitter intensely and that may be coloring my perception.

[GGT]

My point was that "shaming" doesn't seem to be an effective way to modify human behavior, at least not in the 21st century; whether it's on Twitter or this forum. Pretty sure Aimless already knew that, and understood the metaphor wasn't a personal attack, but a comment/observation of the post-truth, post-fact Information era where "Cancel Culture" meets gas-lighting, and "shame" has no real meaning or practical definition.

[Aimless]

Should we shame you for spending so much time in Twitter, and linking almost every post you make to Twitter? Would that heal you from your addiction to Twitter?

Everyone knows how often I disagree with GGT, particularly when it comes to posting behaviors. She has a point though. While I hesitate to throw around a word like addiction, there does seem to be an inordinate fixation. Of course, I also dislike Twitter intensely and that may be coloring my perception.

It's the most visually effective way to share a news story on this forum and everyone knows you two get on one another's nerves because you're basically the same person

[Aimless]

My point was that "shaming" doesn't seem to be an effective way to modify human behavior, at least not in the 21st century; whether it's on Twitter or this forum. Pretty sure Aimless already knew that, and understood the metaphor wasn't a personal attack, but a comment/observation of the post-truth, post-fact Information era where "Cancel Culture" meets gas-lighting, and "shame" has no real meaning or practical definition.

This judge was shamed so thoroughly that she was forced to make a public apology. I disagree with the blanket statement that shaming is not an effective way to modify behavior—the issue is not that shaming isn't effective in and of itself, but, rather, that we live in a world where it's often tenable to commit shameful acts because we are protected from shame through access to/privileged membership in communities where such acts are acceptable (or even valorized). Depending on the situation, shaming can be incredibly effective.

To the extent that shaming isn't an effective way to affect long-term behavioral change wrt the kind of behavior demonstrated by this judge, neither are most other approaches—adults don't tend to change antisocial behaviors substantially in response to outside intervention alone.

I don't think shaming should be expected to make people come to deep moral insights. Afaict the primary purpose of shaming is and has always been to discourage/deter/punish behavior deemed undesirable by a community. It's not a rehabilitative tool—it's an external social restraint. And I see it fulfilling that function very effectively on a daily basis. The moral status of that can of course be debated at length, but that's (largely) a separate question from whether or not shame "works".

[GGT]

It's the most visually effective way to share a news story on this forum

False assumption. We don't need "visuals" for news stories to be effective.

and everyone knows you two get on one another's nerves because you're basically the same person

False presumption. I get on Fuzzy's nerves because I'm old enough to be his mother, and his mother is always right.

(That's a joke, Fuzzy)

[Aimless]

False assumption. We don't need "visuals" for news stories to be effective.

Bad reading. I said it was the most visually effective way—not that visuals are the only way for news stories to be effective. Moreover, false assumption—you're assuming I'm talking about what's effective wrt persuading a reader, but I'm talking about what's effective wrt quickly presenting information. An embedded tweet lets me share an image, a headline, a subheading, a summary or relevant contextualizing comment, and a clickable (often paywall-bypassing) link—all pleasantly formatted in a self-contained info package—just by pasting in a part of a URL. There is no more effective way to convey as much at-a-glance info. The biggest downside is that some accessibility features might not be able to handle embedded tweets on vBulletin properly.

False presumption. I get on Fuzzy's nerves because I'm old enough to be his mother, and his mother is always right.

You get on each other's nerves because you share the same peeve-driven personality and are roughly the same age.

[Steely Glint]

Tweets

+ Short, so people will actually read them
+ No formatting issues
+ No pay walls
+ Public figures use Twitter to make statements now, and you can actually quote them directly
- Force the other users to look at big picture of the face of someone like Tucker Carlson or Jacob Rees-Mogg

Posting articles

- Have to remove all the white space and bold up the titles or else they look like shit
- Copies in extraneous pull quotes, CTAs and other nonsense
- Typically very high signal to noise ratio, massive amounts of waffle and paragraphs of preamble about nothing
- Probably paywalled or at least needs an account, blocked in the EU because of GDPR etc.
- technically, copying the full thing is a violation of copyright law
+ Good for a topic other users are unlikely to be familiar with

[LittleFuzzy]

It's the most visually effective way to share a news story on this forum

I just don't get how you or others can think that. Probably on me and how I process.

and everyone knows you two get on one another's nerves because you're basically the same person

Saying it struck a nerve, I know, and I do feel sorry about that.

You get on each other's nerves because you share the same peeve-driven personality and are roughly the same age.

I think we have very different "peeve-driven personalities". And unless it takes a lot less time to get to your medical level in Sweden (or you're not as far along the track than I thought) than it does in the US I think I'm rather closer to you in age than GGT.

[Aimless]

I just don't get how you or others can think that. Probably on me and how I process.



Saying it struck a nerve, I know, and I do feel sorry about that.



I think we have very different "peeve-driven personalities". And unless it takes a lot less time to get to your medical level in Sweden (or you're not as far along the track than I thought) than it does in the US I think I'm rather closer to you in age than GGT.

Are you gonna deny that you're the oldest 30-y-o boomer that has ever lived

[Being]

So, back on topic...Stoning is much more effective than just shaming.

[Lewkowski]

This judge was shamed so thoroughly that she was forced to make a public apology. I disagree with the blanket statement that shaming is not an effective way to modify behavior—the issue is not that shaming isn't effective in and of itself, but, rather, that we live in a world where it's often tenable to commit shameful acts because we are protected from shame through access to/privileged membership in communities where such acts are acceptable (or even valorized). Depending on the situation, shaming can be incredibly effective.

To the extent that shaming isn't an effective way to affect long-term behavioral change wrt the kind of behavior demonstrated by this judge, neither are most other approaches—adults don't tend to change antisocial behaviors substantially in response to outside intervention alone.

I don't think shaming should be expected to make people come to deep moral insights. Afaict the primary purpose of shaming is and has always been to discourage/deter/punish behavior deemed undesirable by a community. It's not a rehabilitative tool—it's an external social restraint. And I see it fulfilling that function very effectively on a daily basis. The moral status of that can of course be debated at length, but that's (largely) a separate question from whether or not shame "works".

Sounds like you believe in deterrence now.

[LittleFuzzy]

Are you gonna deny that you're the oldest 30-y-o boomer that has ever lived

Being born in the '80s does not make me a boomer. Nor do my positions and attitudes you Nordic quack.

[Being]

Being born in the '80s ...

No I wasn't. I was born in the ... oh my ... the fifties.

[Aimless]

Sounds like you believe in deterrence now.

To be honest it's pretty cool that a man can feed himself despite being so dumb that he actively debates an issue for two decades without understanding what people are saying. Some things can be deterred by some methods. The debates on this forum have typically been about what methods of deterrence are 1. morally acceptable, and 2. sufficiently effective from a crime reduction perspective to justify their cost (in terms of human suffering, money, opportunity cost, etc). Capital punishment, for example, is considered (in developed countries) to be morally unacceptable—as well as having no meaningful additional deterrence benefit over alternative punishments (prison). Most developed countries have societies in which harsher punishments are likely to show diminishing returns, wrt deterrence.

Being born in the '80s does not make me a boomer. Nor do my positions and attitudes you Nordic quack.

It's just meme shorthand for "you're a young person who acts like an old person". I am well aware you two are GenXers, personality-wise, but there is no established "30-y-o GenXer" meme.

[Aimless]

No I wasn't. I was born in the ... oh my ... the fifties.

oldest millennial

[Lewkowski]

Capital punishment, for example, is considered (in developed countries) to be morally unacceptable—as well as having no meaningful additional deterrence benefit over alternative punishments (prison). Most developed countries have societies in which harsher punishments are likely to show diminishing returns, wrt deterrence.

Rank Country GDP (Nominal) (billions of $)
1 United States 20,807.27
2 China 15,222.16
3 Japan 4,910.58

All have capital punishment.

[Aimless]

Rank Country GDP (Nominal) (billions of $)
1 United States 20,807.27
2 China 15,222.16
3 Japan 4,910.58

All have capital punishment.

So one third-world failed state, one totalitarian shithole, and one developed nation has capital punishment. Thank you for making my point for me.

[Steely Glint]

Murder rate per 100,000 vs death penalty, top ten nations by Lewkowski's metric.

US: 5.0, DP
China: 0.5, DP
Japan: 0.3, DP
Germany: 0.9, NDP
UK: 1.2, NDP
India: 3.1, DP
France: 1.2, NDP
Italy: 0.6, NDP
Canada: 1.8, NDP
SK: 0.6, NDP*

The presence or absence of the death penalty has no meaningful correlation with murder rate and the deterrence effect of it is basically non-existent.

If you're wondering which of these are shithole countries, the answer is all of them, so there's also no meaningful correlation between murder rate and being a shithole.

* still on the books but abolished de facto, no execution has taken place since 1998

[LittleFuzzy]

So one third-world failed state, one totalitarian shithole, and one developed nation has capital punishment. Thank you for making my point for me.

Are we the failed state or the totalitarian shithole? I can never tell with you.

[Lewkowski]

Murder rate per 100,000 vs death penalty, top ten nations by Lewkowski's metric.

US: 5.0, DP
China: 0.5, DP
Japan: 0.3, DP
Germany: 0.9, NDP
UK: 1.2, NDP
India: 3.1, DP
France: 1.2, NDP
Italy: 0.6, NDP
Canada: 1.8, NDP
SK: 0.6, NDP*

The presence or absence of the death penalty has no meaningful correlation with murder rate and the deterrence effect of it is basically non-existent.

If you're wondering which of these are shithole countries, the answer is all of them, so there's also no meaningful correlation between murder rate and being a shithole.

* still on the books but abolished de facto, no execution has taken place since 1998

I actually agree that the death penalty isn't a great deterrent because it isn't used often enough. But you know its so weird how people get data backwards. More crime --> more prison and death sentences. More prison and death sentences don't lead to more crime. Come on now, try to be logical. America isn't more violent because we have a death penalty.

[Steely Glint]

I don't know how you got that from 'presence or absence of the death penalty has no meaningful correlation with murder rate'.