5 ms·

There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on viol

There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are guilty to redeem themselves after "paying their debt to society"). But we've never really conceived of an equivalent "Rule of Law" for reputational attack: both epistemically, to decide whether someone is actually guilty, and proportionally, to decide what is the proper social punishment and the appropriate path to redemption. What's more, the internet has vastly increased the power of reputation attack, for better and worse: it's good that it's more difficult for an actual sexual predator to skip town and offend again, but bad that someone unjustly accused (including of lesser crimes) cannot restart their life. Instant world-wide communication has introduced a super-weapon, like going overnight from spears to aerial bombardment. I frankly have no idea how we would go about constructing a Rule of Law for shaming. The distributed, bottom-up nature of the phenomenon is one of its strengths, able to act nimbly to respond to cases that the Law cannot; and each person's ability to make their own assessment of the character of others (including outsourcing that intelligence to the crowd) is a non-negotiable component of individual freedom, the Liberal Enlightenment tradition, etc. But none of that changes the fact that every tweet can now carry the social equivalent of a tactical nuke. If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure.

radarsat1 8y ago
Where does libel fit into your theory? Libel being saying unflattering untruths, which I guess is more akin to violence, whereas you are talking about exaggerating or taking to the extreme the saying of unflattering truths or maybe ambiguously true statements, things that ride the line of fact and opinion. I think I agree that we haven't decided how to draw the line. Of course, when I think of embarrassment as a punishment I think the practice goes back centuries, I picture criminals put out on display in the village square for the public to shame. I don't know whether truth played a strong role even back then in that kind of public shaming. Have we or have we not made progress since medieval times?
- lukifer 8y ago
  Very good points. The challenge with libel/slander (in the US) is that bears a high burden of proof; I'm allowed to say "OJ Simpson is a murderer", so long as I believe it to be true, and/or I'm not doing so with malicious intent, both of which are very difficult to disprove. So while The State does an interest in reputational assault, it's quite narrowly scoped. The desire to punish cheaters is ancient and instinctual; but the other side of that coin is shaming a violator of norms (whether guilty or innocent) is also a group bonding experience, and potentially a selfish means for signaling one's moral high ground to the tribe. Rene Girard's Scapegoat Theory presents an interesting model of the phenomenon: https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3 https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3
elhudy 8y ago
>If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure. On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular social media website; while there was a large downside associated with this, I, much like the author, owned my opinion and clarified where needed. The outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more positively than the hatred from those who didn't.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more positively than the hatred from those who didn't. What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred?
  - elhudy 8y ago
    >What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred? I'm not trying to invalidate the OP's point, just showing how the social shaming from those who don't matter (TWDM™) can lead to a somewhat positive outcome. It's largely a matter of your sensitivity to the social pressure which in the author's case was very high (he lost his job).
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      So if it doesn't work, a great injustice could be done.
      - elhudy 8y ago
        Of course, but nobody is arguing otherwise
- povertyworld 8y ago
  There's a popular growth hacking and viral marketing book that talks about how to leverage outrage mobs to create publicity for your releases. The tactic described seems to be used regularly on many social media platforms, but the author went the extra mile and helped organize physical protests against the product he was tasked with marketing.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
What we have right now is not shaming, it's bullying. Boycotting a movie because the director cheated on his wife is no different than beating a classmate because his mother is fat. I can only hope we'll eventually outgrow it.
- Miner49er 8y ago
  No, those are very two different things, and that example actually shows the difference between bullying and shaming well. The director is being shamed for something he did. The kid is being bullied on the other hand, because it is over something out of his control.
  - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
    Fair point, I stand corrected then: let's consider beating a boy because he is fat?
    - Miner49er 8y ago
      I should've also pointed out there is also obviously a huge difference between not going to see a movie someone made and beating someone. Also, it's still out of the kid's control, depending on age (parents supply the food) so it's not a great example.
      - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
        Depending on circumstances, boycotting a person and running his (or her) career may cause more suffering than beating. While these two situations are different, they have a lot in common: - the casus belli often has nothing to do with the bully. Being fat is my problem (unless you sit next to me in the airplane). Me cheating my wife is between two of us. None of that should be anyone's business - the purpose of both actions is hurting the individual, not correcting the behavior. Being beaten is an awful way to lose weight. - both actions are collective. Those trying to confront the bully are risking to become the next victim.
panzagl 8y ago
In many ways the Church was the old institution of moral power- an attack on reputation could be mitigated through confession and repentance, with the confessor acting as a judge would for the State. Of course once the Church had its own reputation crisis it started to crumble from the top, and nothing has really taken its place.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  That's why many countries have a public figure with limited political power, such as British queen or German president. They serve as a "conscience of the nation".
  - renox 8y ago
    I'm French and I prefer very much 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' as a moral standard than British's queen/king who are definitively not equal with their subjects.
    - rat87 8y ago
      That's as
    - rat87 8y ago
      As noted some countries have an appointed president (not for life) without much power that takes a similar symbolic (head of state) role to a monarch/Governor general in a constitutional monarchy (democracy). Like the German or Israeli presidents
      - anoncake 8y ago
        Saying the role of the German president is symbolic is a bit like saying the role of flight attendants is to sell food and drinks. He has important powers, but only in case of a crisis that would otherwise result in a dysfunctional government.
dredmorbius 8y ago
The state's monopaly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.
opwieurposiu 8y ago
We used to have a way to deal with reputational attack, the duel. If a gentleman's reputation is attacked, he may demand satisfaction from the offender. The offender could reject the duel at the cost of being known as a coward. If the duel is accepted, honer is restored to the victor of the duel. So much more elegant, faster, cheaper then the current system of lawyers and judges and various other third parties who all want to be paid. Bring back the duel!
- Theodores 8y ago
  Curiously the duel died out. There is a field in Gloucestershire where the last UK duel was held and it was a very long time go. I don't think the law was the reason for the demise of 'the duel', I also wonder if it loomed larger in literature than in life. Although a 'bit silly' I think there is also something to be said for 'the duel'. Participants have 'skin in the game'. Plus there is conduct and rules that you don't get in a street gang fight. If I was a rich man I would like an antique set of duelling pistols, matched and in their antique case, there as 'art'.
  - ranie93 8y ago
    Sorry If I misunderstand, but wasn't this form of dueling with real pistols where the loser most often (almost always?) died? Or did they have non-lethal duels?
    - chuckkir 8y ago
      Old smooth-bore dueling pistols aren't terribly accurate, and a kill shot was unlikely. However, wounds and infection were more likely to kill you than they would be today. More accurate pistols may be one of the reasons the duel died out.

radarsat1 8y ago

Where does libel fit into your theory? Libel being saying unflattering untruths, which I guess is more akin to violence, whereas you are talking about exaggerating or taking to the extreme the saying of unflattering truths or maybe ambiguously true statements, things that ride the line of fact and opinion. I think I agree that we haven't decided how to draw the line. Of course, when I think of embarrassment as a punishment I think the practice goes back centuries, I picture criminals put out on display in the village square for the public to shame. I don't know whether truth played a strong role even back then in that kind of public shaming. Have we or have we not made progress since medieval times?

lukifer 8y ago
Very good points. The challenge with libel/slander (in the US) is that bears a high burden of proof; I'm allowed to say "OJ Simpson is a murderer", so long as I believe it to be true, and/or I'm not doing so with malicious intent, both of which are very difficult to disprove. So while The State does an interest in reputational assault, it's quite narrowly scoped. The desire to punish cheaters is ancient and instinctual; but the other side of that coin is shaming a violator of norms (whether guilty or innocent) is also a group bonding experience, and potentially a selfish means for signaling one's moral high ground to the tribe. Rene Girard's Scapegoat Theory presents an interesting model of the phenomenon: https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3 https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3

elhudy 8y ago

>If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure. On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular social media website; while there was a large downside associated with this, I, much like the author, owned my opinion and clarified where needed. The outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more positively than the hatred from those who didn't.

stcredzero 8y ago
The outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more positively than the hatred from those who didn't. What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred?
- elhudy 8y ago
  >What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred? I'm not trying to invalidate the OP's point, just showing how the social shaming from those who don't matter (TWDM™) can lead to a somewhat positive outcome. It's largely a matter of your sensitivity to the social pressure which in the author's case was very high (he lost his job).
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    So if it doesn't work, a great injustice could be done.
    - elhudy 8y ago
      Of course, but nobody is arguing otherwise
povertyworld 8y ago
There's a popular growth hacking and viral marketing book that talks about how to leverage outrage mobs to create publicity for your releases. The tactic described seems to be used regularly on many social media platforms, but the author went the extra mile and helped organize physical protests against the product he was tasked with marketing.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago

What we have right now is not shaming, it's bullying. Boycotting a movie because the director cheated on his wife is no different than beating a classmate because his mother is fat. I can only hope we'll eventually outgrow it.

Miner49er 8y ago
No, those are very two different things, and that example actually shows the difference between bullying and shaming well. The director is being shamed for something he did. The kid is being bullied on the other hand, because it is over something out of his control.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  Fair point, I stand corrected then: let's consider beating a boy because he is fat?
  - Miner49er 8y ago
    I should've also pointed out there is also obviously a huge difference between not going to see a movie someone made and beating someone. Also, it's still out of the kid's control, depending on age (parents supply the food) so it's not a great example.
    - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
      Depending on circumstances, boycotting a person and running his (or her) career may cause more suffering than beating. While these two situations are different, they have a lot in common: - the casus belli often has nothing to do with the bully. Being fat is my problem (unless you sit next to me in the airplane). Me cheating my wife is between two of us. None of that should be anyone's business - the purpose of both actions is hurting the individual, not correcting the behavior. Being beaten is an awful way to lose weight. - both actions are collective. Those trying to confront the bully are risking to become the next victim.

panzagl 8y ago

In many ways the Church was the old institution of moral power- an attack on reputation could be mitigated through confession and repentance, with the confessor acting as a judge would for the State. Of course once the Church had its own reputation crisis it started to crumble from the top, and nothing has really taken its place.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
That's why many countries have a public figure with limited political power, such as British queen or German president. They serve as a "conscience of the nation".
- renox 8y ago
  I'm French and I prefer very much 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' as a moral standard than British's queen/king who are definitively not equal with their subjects.
  - rat87 8y ago
    That's as
  - rat87 8y ago
    As noted some countries have an appointed president (not for life) without much power that takes a similar symbolic (head of state) role to a monarch/Governor general in a constitutional monarchy (democracy). Like the German or Israeli presidents
    - anoncake 8y ago
      Saying the role of the German president is symbolic is a bit like saying the role of flight attendants is to sell food and drinks. He has important powers, but only in case of a crisis that would otherwise result in a dysfunctional government.

dredmorbius 8y ago

The state's monopaly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.

opwieurposiu 8y ago

We used to have a way to deal with reputational attack, the duel. If a gentleman's reputation is attacked, he may demand satisfaction from the offender. The offender could reject the duel at the cost of being known as a coward. If the duel is accepted, honer is restored to the victor of the duel. So much more elegant, faster, cheaper then the current system of lawyers and judges and various other third parties who all want to be paid. Bring back the duel!

Theodores 8y ago
Curiously the duel died out. There is a field in Gloucestershire where the last UK duel was held and it was a very long time go. I don't think the law was the reason for the demise of 'the duel', I also wonder if it loomed larger in literature than in life. Although a 'bit silly' I think there is also something to be said for 'the duel'. Participants have 'skin in the game'. Plus there is conduct and rules that you don't get in a street gang fight. If I was a rich man I would like an antique set of duelling pistols, matched and in their antique case, there as 'art'.
- ranie93 8y ago
  Sorry If I misunderstand, but wasn't this form of dueling with real pistols where the loser most often (almost always?) died? Or did they have non-lethal duels?
  - chuckkir 8y ago
    Old smooth-bore dueling pistols aren't terribly accurate, and a kill shot was unlikely. However, wounds and infection were more likely to kill you than they would be today. More accurate pistols may be one of the reasons the duel died out.