3 ms·

I did not say "they've done worse". I said "what constitutes a shame mob?". I should have made clear my implicit question - how is "shame mob" relevant to what

• zamalek 11y ago
  > was that a 'shame mob'? I'm not actually sure. The supporters of each opponent certainly seemed to be a bunch of morons acting like juvenile runts; which is indicative of mob psychology. I'm not sure if either went as far as what I would define as a "shame mob" - I simply don't have enough information about the events. Were they harassing by e.g. picketing outside of the opponents' personal residences? Then possibly yes. Merely protesting against [what they believed] an immoral person, in a public place, is perfectly acceptable: especially if that person were a presidential candidate.
  • dalke 11y ago
    The article requires that you accept that 'shame mobs' are real, and a threat to free speech on the internet. If you, like me, don't know what that term means, then did that article make sense to you? Here are the uses of the term 'mob': "You may be liable to legal sanctions or a twitter shame mob." - in the context of 'like-minded souls [who] via social media ... hold you answerable to their moral standards'. "The shame mobs that spontaneously form" - that being those people who learned about Hunt's sexist comments at a meeting to support women in science, and attended by international journalists, and who then spread the word. It did not qualify which actions were mob actions. "The internet allows ordinary people to exercise 18th Century mob justice in a 20th Century way, destroying people's lives bloodlessly from their mobile phones thousands of miles away." - That's an analogy .. and really should be the 21st Century, not? Plus, we've got 20th Century lynch mobs, so there's no real reason to reach back a couple centuries. "Full scale shame mobs are still rare or course, but that is not all we have to fear.". I think it's appropriate to quote Alice's Restaurant here: > And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in, Singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an Organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said Fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and Walking out. And friends they may think it's a movement. "Third, we could call on the government to save us from the mob [... for example] installing fire-breaks in social media networks that make the formation of flash mobs less likely making it illegal to fire the target of a shame mob without cause and due process" - "flash mob" are also considered good things, like the dance flash mobs that sometimes appear. So "mob" itself isn't the issue, but something more specific. The author wants there to be legal job protections against the targets of a shame mob. There are already projections for those who complain about discrimination (on the basis of sex, race, religion, and a few other protected categories) in the workplace, so many of the people who protest against sexist comments are already protected. It's mostly only those who advocate sexism which don't have these protections. So if I read this correctly, it's arguing for more protections for those making sexist and racist comments. And I wonder how the law might define what "shame mob" means in an actionable way.
    • zamalek 11y ago
      > twitter shame mob For that I do have a very clear definition and know exactly what the author is talking about. What I've determined from this debate is that the "Hunt shame mob" is incredibly subjective. Hunt is the type of discussion about this matter which won't come to a conclusion, possibly because his opponents acted in a mature and humane way - it's possibly completely irrelevant to this discussion. This[1] shame mob is very clear cut: if you are on that list you will have problems being employed in certain industries (read: your rights are now limited). Being placed on to that list is easy: question the common moral compass or fall into demographics that fall within the maintainers' personal bigotry (e.g. religion). > So if I read this correctly, it's arguing for more protections for those making sexist and racist comments. Correct. Here's a thing: some years ago (let's say 500) we lived in a world where certain demographics had no rights: up to and including being able to hold a job. This included women, homosexuals and certain races. Freedom of speech was introduced in order to liberate these people: they were given a voice in order to contest the system that was discriminating against them. Specific examples, especially homosexuality, were deemed immoral by the mainstream moral compass. Yet, thanks to freedom of speech, modern people find it hard to believe how people were ever discriminated against like that. The price of freedom of speech is that you simply can't tie a moral compass to it: because if that had been done, homosexuality would still be immoral today. Who's to say what primitive beliefs our moral compass has? Who's to say what moral battles we'll be fighting in another 500 years time? Will we ever fight those moral battles and enlighten ourselves if we take steps to discriminate against ugly beliefs (such as racism)? Most definitely not. We'd be the same pathetic race who makes pathetic little block lists that affect people's livelihoods; and because of that, the same pathetic race which spreads misery instead of happiness. To have rights for homosexuals we had to have rights for racists. No human is sufficiently advanced enough to conjure up the perfect moral compass: we prove that day after day. The only solution is, for now, to have no standard moral compass. The mainstream moral compass is not right because it is, itself, still rife with bigotry. [1]: http://www.theblockbot.com/sign_up/connect.php http://www.theblockbot.com/sign_up/connect.php
      • dalke 11y ago
        > To have rights for homosexuals we had to have rights for racists. Yes, we have decided that there rights that apply to everyone. I don't know why that's relevant. We've long established that there are not universal rights in all things. We, for example, prohibit certain types of religious practices, even with the right to one's own religion. There is of course a tension, but I don't see why this discussion of rights is relevant for this case. In the US case, the issues are the civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace, on the basis of race, religion, and several other protected classes. These have long been adjudicated as being constitutionally valid. If someone speaks up in public against sexual discrimination in the workplace, that person's employer cannot (legally) use that as a firing offense, and cannot let that statement influence job related decisions. We do not extend the same right to other sorts of discrimination, so there isn't a quid pro quo set of rights, which is what it appears that you have suggested. And we recognize that culture and laws change, so we don't "tie a moral compass" to something and leave it there. Otherwise we would still have slavery.