12 ms·
The article kinda misses a major point: > Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame” I would argue that shaming used to promote you
by BenoitEssiambre 5y ago
The article kinda misses a major point:
> Flanagan calls shame accompanied by progressive values “mature shame”
I would argue that shaming used to promote your political views is often the most damaging kind of shaming because on top of being the most divisive, it is likely counterproductive, an offputting move that damages your brand and often creates a powerful backlash against it.
Now there's some subtlety here. It depends who you target in your shaming. The article does mention that shaming is considered more acceptable when punching up than punching down, which I would agree with, but you have to be very careful how you define that. Some people tell themselves they are punching up, when they are clearly punching down. One group this is clearly not privileged are the uneducated people who have always struggled at learning and understanding the world, who's grasp of morality is limited and requires weekly reminders by moral leaders, who fall for internet conspiracy theories, who have no chance of having the academic understanding of race and gender that seems to be increasingly asked of people. These people who struggle in educational settings, are comparatively handicapped, often don't have access to good stable jobs, are the first to become unemployed during recessions so are some of the most vulnerable people out there even when they are white.
Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach. Advanced empathy involves multilevel recursive counterfactual meta-cognitive logic ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K4eDzqS2rbcBDsCLZ/unrolling-social-metacognition-three-levels-of-meta-are-not https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K4eDzqS2rbcBDsCLZ/unrolling-... ) and sometimes, academic understanding of past history. Asking some of these people to understand these things is asking people in wheelchairs to run and run away they will. If you shame them for their handicap they will fight back.
It's fine to shame the villainous leaders who manipulated these people for their evil ends, but if you shame the people for falling into the traps, you actually push them further towards those evils.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoShame is a blunt tool. It's inconsistent. It has no moral value in and of itself. The funny thing about shame is the mental gymnastics that are gone through to justify who should or shouldn't be subject to it and on what criteria. The "villain" is whoever happens to be unpopular or undesired. Vulnerability is spun as a vice or saving grace in the interests of the shamer and his agenda. To paraphrase Cardinal Richelieu, it only takes a few words for one to find a reason to hang a man.
- KarlKemp 5y agoThe next best replacement for shame is criminal law. Trust me when I say that's an instrument far less precise.
- dalbasal 5y agoThere are elitist traps in here, somewhere. First, that a lot of people are too uneducated, stupid or uninformed to be responsible for the moral viewpoints. Hence why all blame should be foisted onto the "villainous leaders who manipulated." Second, that your (our) moral viewpoint is the advanced... and the contrary presumably degenerate or primitive. That kind of empathy isn't well received. It's condescension. At its worst, it's dehumanising... no moral agency. Also, take note that they think the same things about you. The reason why you hold your foolish moral viewpoints is because you have been mislead, lied to and manipulated by media, university and Hollywood elites. Idk if shame is useful, or legitimate as a way of mediating all this. But... I'm quite confident that condescension isn't a helpful posture. Better to start by recognising the actual opposition of viewpoints. Argue in earnest. Etc. Ie: I'm not mad at you. You're not smart enough to know right from wrong. I'm mad at the people who spoon-fed you your stupid opinions. It's not actually an empathetic posture, imo.
- BenoitEssiambre 5y agoThis is what makes it difficult to discuss this. It's hard to do without rudely insulting people. How do you find words that are not too condescending. There is a long history of using "the people" to mean non intellectuals including it being enshrined in the US constitution. But that often does not make it clear enough for everyone to understand that we're talking about a vulnerability. Populism gets turned into a dirty word. How often have I stood into a room full of university graduates deriding populism equating it to demagogy. This is a form of punching down. But when done with a perspective of helping with the "handicap", people are more receptive than you would expect. I've made this argument on twitter once and maybe it was because of the criticism of the "elitist" down punchers but found myself for the first time gaining maga followers, the very people who's intelligence I insulted. Kid Rock's ode to MAGAism includes lyrics like:"NO I’VE NEVER BEEN THE SMARTEST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agvibm7Wqy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agvibm7Wqy4) These people know they have a handicap when it comes to academic intellect and are looking for others who will respect the struggle that comes with that. People don't vote for Trump because they think he is smart, but because he respects the lack of academic smarts, because he is for them a refreshing example of success and respect without smarts in a world where it's increasingly difficult to achieve and people will cancel you if you are unable to reason at that academic level of morality.
- verisimi 5y ago> Advanced morality about things like race and gender is complex and not within everyone's reach. "Advanced morality" - what's that? Can you teach me? Afaik, morality begins (and ends) with the Golden Rule 'do unto others'. "Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)" "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
- spawarotti 5y agoWhat if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?
- Dracophoenix 5y agoThat depends on how much value you place on the liberty to make such jokes. Whether you personally disregard the potential feelings of other people is a choice left to you and only you. How other people do feel or are perceived to feel about a subject is not a basis for assigning a moral value.
- verisimi 5y agoIf you think others are sensitive about a topic, does it seem right to you to make jokes at their expense?
- spawarotti 5y agoAnd how do you know if they are sensitive? Are you going to ask them, or not? If not, why not? If yes, would it still be the golden rule? Or perhaps platinum rule - do unto others as -they- wish, not as -you-. What I am trying to say is that the golden rule and its applicability is far from obvious. You can consider interpreting it correctly the most basic "advanced morality" you asked about.
- zozbot234 5y agoThe relevant distinction is not "punching up vs. punching down", which is meaningless, but "punching at actual misuse of power or not". It's very rare that shaming is a useful tool, but it can work indirectly as a form of raising awareness where the "shame" is really just a ploy for virality. Harvey Weinstein, mentioned in the article, is a perfect example: he was engaging in behavior that was not only grossly unethical, but raised very real questions about actual legality. That's where "shame" can work for good.