30 ms·

> But discussing whether this is shaming has no more to do with P=NP than the phrases you quote. Yes, and? I'm writing comments about the article, not about P=

> But discussing whether this is shaming has no more to do with P=NP than the phrases you quote. Yes, and? I'm writing comments about the article, not about P=NP. Since the article contains ridicule, comments about that seem well justified. I'm not a expert on complexity theory, nor have I claimed to be. The context of discussion in a comment section on an article is the article, not it's purported title. I haven't criticized the article, and yet people seem to be acting as-if I have. I've only described what it contains. I have made no judgement about it. > As there is clearly no possibility of inducing shame, then it seems unlikely that this was intended to do so, and so is not shaming I think you know how bad that argument is. The article contains what it contains.

mannykannot 9y ago
I am aware that you are not discussing the substantive issue, and I have not mistaken your comments as such - I merely disagree with your characterization of the article's language. > I think you know how bad that argument is. Intent is an essential element of shaming. If you have an argument to the contrary, you would be more persuasive if you were to state it, and not simply insinuate that there is one.
- mjburgess 9y ago
  Merely because it isnt likely that a person will feel shame does not mean that this article isnt (1) written with that intention; (2) written with that effect; and most importantly, (3) written with that technique. See, for example, however every major comedian speaks about Trump. That is ridicule and shaming of him, of his personality and character. Yet, he's mostly shameless. I would guess that actually the people who display shame the least (or seem least self-aware about when it is appropriate to display shame, etc.) are those most likely to incite shaming in others. Don't you get angry at someone laughing (in ridicule) at you? Doesn't this provoke, sometimes, a brooding preoccupation with ridiculing them back? Is it likely that would be effective? When people are preoccupied in this way, they are dealing with their own internal emotional state (anger, resentment, etc.) -- they arent thinking, "well this will be effective". By way of example: all of late-night TV.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    > Merely because it isnt likely that a person will feel shame does not mean that this article isnt (1) written with that intention... If you think intent matters, then this is the wrong way round; whether it is a credible attempt to induce shame is a valid consideration. If you don't think intent matters, then it is beside the point. As you know, I do think intent matters, and when you take the exchange as a whole, I don't see it. > ... (2) written with that effect... It seems highly unlikely to have had that effect. > ...and most importantly, (3) written with that technique. This is where we differ, as I consider this to be the least important concern, well after intent and effect. If shame was neither intended or resulted, where is the shame to justify calling it shaming? Why should one be concerned about it? The rest of your post does not appear to be applicable to this case, which, in my opinion, is comprised of the whole exchange, and not just TFA.
    - mjburgess 9y ago
      It seems ridiculing in the context of a mutually ridiculing discussion. If you're saying it isnt a mutually ridiculing discussion, rather, it's taking place in a context of affected ridicule for the amusement of its interlocutors -- fine. I don't know the context, if that is it, then I am wrong. However from the author's comments here about how obnoxious the other guy is, I believe my view is more likely to be correct. NB. You can infer intent from style. You can infer intent from anything we all do it constantly as a requisite part of ordinary human interaction, and it is often very successful. "Intent" isnt some radically internal part of an inaccessible void, it's the motivator for your actions which is often trivial to infer in a given context. However, with anything, inferences may be wrong -- this does not make them ordinarily so, impossible, or generally suspicious. I think intent matters to (1) and (2), it doesnt matter to (3). The claim I was defending, that this article is (somewhat) shaming and this claim be interpreted as any combination of 1/2/3. Personally my view is that it is all of them (possibly, justifiably so).

mannykannot 9y ago

I am aware that you are not discussing the substantive issue, and I have not mistaken your comments as such - I merely disagree with your characterization of the article's language. > I think you know how bad that argument is. Intent is an essential element of shaming. If you have an argument to the contrary, you would be more persuasive if you were to state it, and not simply insinuate that there is one.

mjburgess 9y ago
Merely because it isnt likely that a person will feel shame does not mean that this article isnt (1) written with that intention; (2) written with that effect; and most importantly, (3) written with that technique. See, for example, however every major comedian speaks about Trump. That is ridicule and shaming of him, of his personality and character. Yet, he's mostly shameless. I would guess that actually the people who display shame the least (or seem least self-aware about when it is appropriate to display shame, etc.) are those most likely to incite shaming in others. Don't you get angry at someone laughing (in ridicule) at you? Doesn't this provoke, sometimes, a brooding preoccupation with ridiculing them back? Is it likely that would be effective? When people are preoccupied in this way, they are dealing with their own internal emotional state (anger, resentment, etc.) -- they arent thinking, "well this will be effective". By way of example: all of late-night TV.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  > Merely because it isnt likely that a person will feel shame does not mean that this article isnt (1) written with that intention... If you think intent matters, then this is the wrong way round; whether it is a credible attempt to induce shame is a valid consideration. If you don't think intent matters, then it is beside the point. As you know, I do think intent matters, and when you take the exchange as a whole, I don't see it. > ... (2) written with that effect... It seems highly unlikely to have had that effect. > ...and most importantly, (3) written with that technique. This is where we differ, as I consider this to be the least important concern, well after intent and effect. If shame was neither intended or resulted, where is the shame to justify calling it shaming? Why should one be concerned about it? The rest of your post does not appear to be applicable to this case, which, in my opinion, is comprised of the whole exchange, and not just TFA.
  - mjburgess 9y ago
    It seems ridiculing in the context of a mutually ridiculing discussion. If you're saying it isnt a mutually ridiculing discussion, rather, it's taking place in a context of affected ridicule for the amusement of its interlocutors -- fine. I don't know the context, if that is it, then I am wrong. However from the author's comments here about how obnoxious the other guy is, I believe my view is more likely to be correct. NB. You can infer intent from style. You can infer intent from anything we all do it constantly as a requisite part of ordinary human interaction, and it is often very successful. "Intent" isnt some radically internal part of an inaccessible void, it's the motivator for your actions which is often trivial to infer in a given context. However, with anything, inferences may be wrong -- this does not make them ordinarily so, impossible, or generally suspicious. I think intent matters to (1) and (2), it doesnt matter to (3). The claim I was defending, that this article is (somewhat) shaming and this claim be interpreted as any combination of 1/2/3. Personally my view is that it is all of them (possibly, justifiably so).