7 ms·

Shame is absolutely a valuable tool for change. Without it society would not function since many of our 'rules' are self-enforced.

gosub100 3y ago
It ends up leading to "word-inflation" where you have to keep shouting louder, stretching the truth to be acknowledged. The word "racist" changing meaning over the last 30-40 years is a great example.
- pnutjam 3y ago
  Please elaborate on the change in meaning?
  - pnutjam 3y ago
    https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm
  - gosub100 3y ago
    why isn't the word "prejudice" used anymore?
    - pnutjam 3y ago
      https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm
      - gosub100 3y ago
        I didn't ask what GPT or 3 random people said. why can't you articulate your own position?
        pnutjam 3y ago
        Well you didn't answer my question. But I'm going to assume you're hinting at the false equivalency conservative line to trot out about prejudice against poor it rural people. Prejudice is rooted in lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity. Racism is familiar and has it's own body of knowledge; all wrong, but vehemently defended. Racists try to build their own narrative.
        gosub100 3y ago
        I didnt ask what the difference was, I asked why one word isn't used anymore. Why are you not paying attention?
        pnutjam 3y ago
        You still haven't answered me, but I'll leave this for you consideration. Sub in racist for anti-semite. I believe this applies to you "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." Jean-Paul Sartre
Spivak 3y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted, shame is one of the most powerful motivators that exists in humans; I'd put money on it being the most powerful. People who are loudly disagreeing don't understand that "shaming (v.)" doesn't always equate to shame actually being felt in the target of said shaming. The act of shaming loses a lot of effectiveness when you can find a community of people who will tell you that it's not actually shameful and that, "no actually the people shaming you are wrong" because those people will suddenly be your best friends. This can be good thing, homosexuality, or bad thing, nazis. And the internet has made every one of those communities 0 distance from everyone. It's why people who try to employ it cut you off from your support networks. Shame is so effective when it actually lands that you can never fully deprogram it -- I will live with my Catholic guilt for the rest of my life.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  Setting aside how wrong everything you just wrote is, companies aren’t people and do not have shame.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Sounds like someone is jealous they didn't get to have any of the apple. This is why words have meanings. Companies aren't people and hence "shaming a company" can't possibly mean "shaming the legal entity" because that's nonsense but instead shaming the humans that make up that legal entity. Saying such a thing is impossible actually treats the company as an autonomous metamind. I interpreted what you said as nonsensical and I'm making that your problem isn't really an argument.
    - redcobra762 3y ago
      You’re saying things like “metamind” but I’m the person writing nonsense? Okay, bud.
redcobra762 3y ago
Nope, shame is ineffective as a tool for change. More often people shut down or ignore you if you attempt to shame them than actually make the change you want. Besides, it's frequently just about vengeance anyway. Shame is really hate of other, for the most part. As a tool for oppression however, yes it's quite effective.
- xpe 3y ago
  The comment above lacks essential nuance and is overly confident.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    The comment above lacks contributory value and is also (ironically) overly confident.
    - xpe 3y ago
      Shall we continue into an infinite regress of zingers? You are correct that I didn't provide supporting reasons myself. Fair point. I suppose I didn't think your comment warranted it. Saying that might come across as harsh, which isn't my goal. I'd rather shift into a constructive and specific discussion instead. In that spirit, I'll elaborate on my criticism. Let's start with your leading sentence: > Nope, shame is ineffective as a tool for change. There are lots of ways to improve this sentence; here is one suggestion: consider a phrasing like "In comparison to _X_, shame tends to be less effective for _particular purpose_." I'd suggest avoiding empirical claims about likelihoods you aren't able to defend. Take this sentence fragment: > More often people shut down or ignore you if you attempt to shame them... If done forcefully, this _might_ lead to "shutting down" or "ignoring"; however, on what basis can one say this happens "more often"? More often than what? The writing here overreaches -- this is why I called it "overconfident". There are many situations where one person points out a shameful behavior in another, who recognizes it, feels bad, and i.e. apologizes and modifies their behavior. My point: it would be faulty to dismiss the idea of shame as useless in social contexts. Finally, the next sentence also struck me as an overreach: > As a tool for oppression however, yes it's quite effective. Care to elaborate your thinking on that one? What do you mean by oppression? By oppression I think of a power dynamic where the weak are kept in a lower position by the more powerful. Is this what you mean? Why do you think shaming is particularly effective way to oppress? In my mind, military, physical, legal, and economic mechanisms tend to be more effective, historically speaking. I could speculate. Perhaps you are referring to the practice by certain religious systems to make people feel ashamed for merely doing things that all humans do (make mistakes) and thus deserve punishment (e.g. by the religious elites, or worse, by yourself, thus making yourself feel weak and unworthy). In short, I'm sufficiently enough in these ideas to be rather unsatisfied with writing that doesn't unpack the ideas at all. No offense intended. I look forward to learning what you mean.
direwolf20 3y ago
Shame can't fight lawyers and handcuffs.

gosub100 3y ago

It ends up leading to "word-inflation" where you have to keep shouting louder, stretching the truth to be acknowledged. The word "racist" changing meaning over the last 30-40 years is a great example.

pnutjam 3y ago
Please elaborate on the change in meaning?
- pnutjam 3y ago
  https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm
- gosub100 3y ago
  why isn't the word "prejudice" used anymore?
  - pnutjam 3y ago
    https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm https://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm
    - gosub100 3y ago
      I didn't ask what GPT or 3 random people said. why can't you articulate your own position?
      - pnutjam 3y ago
        Well you didn't answer my question. But I'm going to assume you're hinting at the false equivalency conservative line to trot out about prejudice against poor it rural people. Prejudice is rooted in lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity. Racism is familiar and has it's own body of knowledge; all wrong, but vehemently defended. Racists try to build their own narrative.
        gosub100 3y ago
        I didnt ask what the difference was, I asked why one word isn't used anymore. Why are you not paying attention?
        pnutjam 3y ago
        You still haven't answered me, but I'll leave this for you consideration. Sub in racist for anti-semite. I believe this applies to you "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." Jean-Paul Sartre

Spivak 3y ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted, shame is one of the most powerful motivators that exists in humans; I'd put money on it being the most powerful. People who are loudly disagreeing don't understand that "shaming (v.)" doesn't always equate to shame actually being felt in the target of said shaming. The act of shaming loses a lot of effectiveness when you can find a community of people who will tell you that it's not actually shameful and that, "no actually the people shaming you are wrong" because those people will suddenly be your best friends. This can be good thing, homosexuality, or bad thing, nazis. And the internet has made every one of those communities 0 distance from everyone. It's why people who try to employ it cut you off from your support networks. Shame is so effective when it actually lands that you can never fully deprogram it -- I will live with my Catholic guilt for the rest of my life.

redcobra762 3y ago
Setting aside how wrong everything you just wrote is, companies aren’t people and do not have shame.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Sounds like someone is jealous they didn't get to have any of the apple. This is why words have meanings. Companies aren't people and hence "shaming a company" can't possibly mean "shaming the legal entity" because that's nonsense but instead shaming the humans that make up that legal entity. Saying such a thing is impossible actually treats the company as an autonomous metamind. I interpreted what you said as nonsensical and I'm making that your problem isn't really an argument.
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    You’re saying things like “metamind” but I’m the person writing nonsense? Okay, bud.

redcobra762 3y ago

Nope, shame is ineffective as a tool for change. More often people shut down or ignore you if you attempt to shame them than actually make the change you want. Besides, it's frequently just about vengeance anyway. Shame is really hate of other, for the most part. As a tool for oppression however, yes it's quite effective.

xpe 3y ago
The comment above lacks essential nuance and is overly confident.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  The comment above lacks contributory value and is also (ironically) overly confident.
  - xpe 3y ago
    Shall we continue into an infinite regress of zingers? You are correct that I didn't provide supporting reasons myself. Fair point. I suppose I didn't think your comment warranted it. Saying that might come across as harsh, which isn't my goal. I'd rather shift into a constructive and specific discussion instead. In that spirit, I'll elaborate on my criticism. Let's start with your leading sentence: > Nope, shame is ineffective as a tool for change. There are lots of ways to improve this sentence; here is one suggestion: consider a phrasing like "In comparison to _X_, shame tends to be less effective for _particular purpose_." I'd suggest avoiding empirical claims about likelihoods you aren't able to defend. Take this sentence fragment: > More often people shut down or ignore you if you attempt to shame them... If done forcefully, this _might_ lead to "shutting down" or "ignoring"; however, on what basis can one say this happens "more often"? More often than what? The writing here overreaches -- this is why I called it "overconfident". There are many situations where one person points out a shameful behavior in another, who recognizes it, feels bad, and i.e. apologizes and modifies their behavior. My point: it would be faulty to dismiss the idea of shame as useless in social contexts. Finally, the next sentence also struck me as an overreach: > As a tool for oppression however, yes it's quite effective. Care to elaborate your thinking on that one? What do you mean by oppression? By oppression I think of a power dynamic where the weak are kept in a lower position by the more powerful. Is this what you mean? Why do you think shaming is particularly effective way to oppress? In my mind, military, physical, legal, and economic mechanisms tend to be more effective, historically speaking. I could speculate. Perhaps you are referring to the practice by certain religious systems to make people feel ashamed for merely doing things that all humans do (make mistakes) and thus deserve punishment (e.g. by the religious elites, or worse, by yourself, thus making yourself feel weak and unworthy). In short, I'm sufficiently enough in these ideas to be rather unsatisfied with writing that doesn't unpack the ideas at all. No offense intended. I look forward to learning what you mean.

direwolf20 3y ago

Shame can't fight lawyers and handcuffs.