5 ms·

Internet shaming is selectively applied and therefore more a tool of oppression and compliance than valid social signalling. "Politeness" and "political correc

Internet shaming is selectively applied and therefore more a tool of oppression and compliance than valid social signalling. "Politeness" and "political correctness" are entirely distinct, and the internet has no concept of that. Or to use their own language, internet shaming is Californian imperialism, attempting to impose it's values on other cultures.

lazyeye 5y ago
Exactly. Advocates for diversity love all its superficial forms (skin color, gender, sexual orientation etc) and absolutely loathe the only form that matters...diversity of thought.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  People are still feeling the effects of an entire group, all Black people in the US, being prohibited by law from acquiring property, wealth or education during the nation’s most formative years. The opportunities afforded to the various groups you mentioned are still super unequal. It’s built into society and didn’t just go away when the Civil Rights Act was signed (Title VII doesn’t even apply to companies of less than 15 employees) and that was less than 50 years ago. Some states protect classes like religion, political party membership, marriage status, illness & orientation by statute. Most states don’t. What is meant by “diversity of thought?”
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    Political party membership is not a protected class. Ditto for "illness" (I think you meant 'disablity'?)
    - tehwebguy 5y ago
      > Political party membership is not a protected class. It’s a protected class in at least a few states (looks like NY & CA plus DC & PR, with a hilarious exception in CA). > Ditto for "illness" (I think you meant 'disablity'?) I mean any medical condition that falls short of ADA protection (which also doesn’t apply when there are less than 15 employees)
  - visarga 5y ago
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      related: Exiting the Vampire Castle https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vam...
    - ratww 5y ago
      > Progressives like to shame the members of their own group into ideological uniformity This happens in pretty much every part of the spectrum. > No original thinking needed, just unconditional support for the cause. The mere fact there are people with dissenting opinions shows there is original thinking.
  - sacrosancty 5y ago
    - yunohn 5y ago
      Okay, whatever? I don’t see why this viewpoint means you should be allowed to tweet racist things about black people?
  - Proven 5y ago
- yunohn 5y ago
  > diversity of thought No one is stopped from having diverse thoughts - you can always think whatever you want. But why do you think you have the right to publicly & globally tweet it without anyone responding to it? Are you looking solely for supportive replies? And zero debate or criticism? The irony is that all the people fighting “cancel culture” with their “diverse” thoughts really seem to mainly just have hot-takes that are racist and sexist. Nothing really diverse…
  - superdisk 5y ago
    > And zero debate or criticism? Criticism and responses would be fine. Bloodthirsty attempts at ruining the persons life/career aren't, yet they're extremely common. As others have said, it adds way too much risk to non-anonymous public discourse, where if it happens that something you said, no matter how innocuous, snowballs for whatever reason, you're screwed. So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express opinions online. I don't even think it's a matter of people really trying to punish intolerant people, it's that mobs are fun to be in, so randoms do just hop in for fun and a rush of moral superiority. You could "cancel" literally anyone over anything if you got enough traction to start going "viral."
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > Criticism and responses would be fine. That is always the majority of comments. Just like not all tweeters are being cancelled. > So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express opinions online. And yet, here you and I are expressing our opinions and having a discussion. Every single criticism I’ve heard is about policing the people who point out any problematic opinions. Truly ironic! > You could "cancel" literally anyone over anything if you got enough traction to start going "viral." Care to link to any real cases of non-racist/sexist/etc comments that got someone cancelled? Or are you just being facetious?
      - superdisk 5y ago
        > And yet, here you and I are expressing our opinions and having a discussion. You and I haven't said anything controversial. > Care to link to any real cases[...] Nolan Bushnell got cancelled because Atari was allegedly sexist in the 70s, and got an award revoked for it. [1] There's of course the infamous dongle joke fiasco at PyCon. [2] James Damore got cancelled for the Google memo, and got fired for it. [3] These are just a couple examples, and you could argue about whether or not these people are actually in the wrong (for the crime of having the wrong opinion), but they clearly don't deserve mob justice attempting to ruin their careers. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/feb/01/nolan-bushnell-atari-pioneer-award-game-developers-conference-san-francisco https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/feb/01/nolan-bushnell... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_...
- k__ 5y ago
  Reminds me of something I read recently: The majority of people who criticize virtue signaling possess no virtues whatsoever.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    That seems like a completely empty and likely incorrect phrase. What exactly does it mean to you?
    - k__ 5y ago
      That people who are against good things happening are part of the reason these good things aren't happening.
      - seattle_spring 5y ago
        Being against showing off shallow acts of goodness done only for clout is not the same as being against good things happening.
        k__ 5y ago
        I know. But I assume they're strongly correlated. I.e. people who are against virture signaling want to get rid of it, because they got nothing to signal, and it makes them look bad in relation.
        f1refly 5y ago
        > But I assume they're strongly correlated. Well, they I assume they aren't. I assume my assumption is more likely than your assumption. You should not just assume things and build your worldview from them.
        lazyeye 5y ago
        Hmmm...I'd argue that most of the people that are virtual-signaling also have nothing to signal (at least on a personal level anyway). It's sort of a lazy, cost-free way to scale the social ladder, just express an opinion that's fashionable. It's hard to think of anything that requires less effort and is at less personal cost. It's entirely reasonable to find these kind of people irritating and obnoxious.

lazyeye 5y ago

Exactly. Advocates for diversity love all its superficial forms (skin color, gender, sexual orientation etc) and absolutely loathe the only form that matters...diversity of thought.

tehwebguy 5y ago
People are still feeling the effects of an entire group, all Black people in the US, being prohibited by law from acquiring property, wealth or education during the nation’s most formative years. The opportunities afforded to the various groups you mentioned are still super unequal. It’s built into society and didn’t just go away when the Civil Rights Act was signed (Title VII doesn’t even apply to companies of less than 15 employees) and that was less than 50 years ago. Some states protect classes like religion, political party membership, marriage status, illness & orientation by statute. Most states don’t. What is meant by “diversity of thought?”
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Political party membership is not a protected class. Ditto for "illness" (I think you meant 'disablity'?)
  - tehwebguy 5y ago
    > Political party membership is not a protected class. It’s a protected class in at least a few states (looks like NY & CA plus DC & PR, with a hilarious exception in CA). > Ditto for "illness" (I think you meant 'disablity'?) I mean any medical condition that falls short of ADA protection (which also doesn’t apply when there are less than 15 employees)
- visarga 5y ago
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    related: Exiting the Vampire Castle https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vam...
  - ratww 5y ago
    > Progressives like to shame the members of their own group into ideological uniformity This happens in pretty much every part of the spectrum. > No original thinking needed, just unconditional support for the cause. The mere fact there are people with dissenting opinions shows there is original thinking.
- sacrosancty 5y ago
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Okay, whatever? I don’t see why this viewpoint means you should be allowed to tweet racist things about black people?
- Proven 5y ago
yunohn 5y ago
> diversity of thought No one is stopped from having diverse thoughts - you can always think whatever you want. But why do you think you have the right to publicly & globally tweet it without anyone responding to it? Are you looking solely for supportive replies? And zero debate or criticism? The irony is that all the people fighting “cancel culture” with their “diverse” thoughts really seem to mainly just have hot-takes that are racist and sexist. Nothing really diverse…
- superdisk 5y ago
  > And zero debate or criticism? Criticism and responses would be fine. Bloodthirsty attempts at ruining the persons life/career aren't, yet they're extremely common. As others have said, it adds way too much risk to non-anonymous public discourse, where if it happens that something you said, no matter how innocuous, snowballs for whatever reason, you're screwed. So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express opinions online. I don't even think it's a matter of people really trying to punish intolerant people, it's that mobs are fun to be in, so randoms do just hop in for fun and a rush of moral superiority. You could "cancel" literally anyone over anything if you got enough traction to start going "viral."
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > Criticism and responses would be fine. That is always the majority of comments. Just like not all tweeters are being cancelled. > So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express opinions online. And yet, here you and I are expressing our opinions and having a discussion. Every single criticism I’ve heard is about policing the people who point out any problematic opinions. Truly ironic! > You could "cancel" literally anyone over anything if you got enough traction to start going "viral." Care to link to any real cases of non-racist/sexist/etc comments that got someone cancelled? Or are you just being facetious?
    - superdisk 5y ago
      > And yet, here you and I are expressing our opinions and having a discussion. You and I haven't said anything controversial. > Care to link to any real cases[...] Nolan Bushnell got cancelled because Atari was allegedly sexist in the 70s, and got an award revoked for it. [1] There's of course the infamous dongle joke fiasco at PyCon. [2] James Damore got cancelled for the Google memo, and got fired for it. [3] These are just a couple examples, and you could argue about whether or not these people are actually in the wrong (for the crime of having the wrong opinion), but they clearly don't deserve mob justice attempting to ruin their careers. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/feb/01/nolan-bushnell-atari-pioneer-award-game-developers-conference-san-francisco https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/feb/01/nolan-bushnell... [2] https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spiraled-way-out-of-control/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale... [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_...
k__ 5y ago
Reminds me of something I read recently: The majority of people who criticize virtue signaling possess no virtues whatsoever.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  That seems like a completely empty and likely incorrect phrase. What exactly does it mean to you?
  - k__ 5y ago
    That people who are against good things happening are part of the reason these good things aren't happening.
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      Being against showing off shallow acts of goodness done only for clout is not the same as being against good things happening.
      - k__ 5y ago
        I know. But I assume they're strongly correlated. I.e. people who are against virture signaling want to get rid of it, because they got nothing to signal, and it makes them look bad in relation.
        f1refly 5y ago
        > But I assume they're strongly correlated. Well, they I assume they aren't. I assume my assumption is more likely than your assumption. You should not just assume things and build your worldview from them.
        lazyeye 5y ago
        Hmmm...I'd argue that most of the people that are virtual-signaling also have nothing to signal (at least on a personal level anyway). It's sort of a lazy, cost-free way to scale the social ladder, just express an opinion that's fashionable. It's hard to think of anything that requires less effort and is at less personal cost. It's entirely reasonable to find these kind of people irritating and obnoxious.