6 ms·

"Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor" It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can tak

by niggler 14y ago

"Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor" It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent? "posting said photograph to Twitter" When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show) "enlist an army against someone" It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired. " It's full scale bullying." You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse. "The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd." It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?
- niggler 14y ago
  I personally don't think public shaming is the right answer to this in the first place, regardless of whether the right person was shamed (makes it worse that the wrong guy was shamed), and please don't construe this as defense of the practice, but news organizations (in particular, Fox News) engage in the same practice with much more vitriol. She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 "I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
- dalke 14y ago
  I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint? It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed. The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public? However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate? Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable. Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    WTF? Do you have any context as to what is going on here? The guy in the middle of the picture that's smiling at the camera is not the perp. Most people who just saw the picture, without reading everything that everyone else wrote, think that he is the perp. Where did I write that I disagree with all forms of public shaming, and that they all need to be prohibited? However, posting up pictures of many men, with one of them clearly staring at the camera, and saying "he jokes about dongles" is wrong when the guy that is at the center of the photo and is staring at the camera is not the guy that joked about dongles. That's defamation. Case closed.

by niggler 14y ago

YuriNiyazov 14y ago

The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?

niggler 14y ago
I personally don't think public shaming is the right answer to this in the first place, regardless of whether the right person was shamed (makes it worse that the wrong guy was shamed), and please don't construe this as defense of the practice, but news organizations (in particular, Fox News) engage in the same practice with much more vitriol. She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 "I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
dalke 14y ago
I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint? It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed. The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public? However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate? Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable. Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  WTF? Do you have any context as to what is going on here? The guy in the middle of the picture that's smiling at the camera is not the perp. Most people who just saw the picture, without reading everything that everyone else wrote, think that he is the perp. Where did I write that I disagree with all forms of public shaming, and that they all need to be prohibited? However, posting up pictures of many men, with one of them clearly staring at the camera, and saying "he jokes about dongles" is wrong when the guy that is at the center of the photo and is staring at the camera is not the guy that joked about dongles. That's defamation. Case closed.