5 ms·

I’m not sure if you are being ironic but just in case you aren’t: Imagine you’re in a store, waiting at the checkout, having a conversation with your SO that h

I’m not sure if you are being ironic but just in case you aren’t: Imagine you’re in a store, waiting at the checkout, having a conversation with your SO that has revealed some key difference of opinion on a topic that affects your relationship. You’re having the conversation in a public place not because the subject matter is public but because that’s where you happen to be at the time and the conversation is important to you and your SO. Now imagine the person who has been standing behind you in line doing something on their phone interrupts you and says "Your conversation is hilarious, I’m live tweeting it as you speak, please carry on" with a big grin on their face. How would you feel about that?

chromanoid 13y ago
Thank you for the example, it's hard to understand that so many people cannot come up with such scenarios. They are proving a total lack of empathy.
mikeash 13y ago
I would feel extremely embarrassed and stupid at having carried out such a private conversation in a place where people could obviously overhear me, and would take care not to do so again.
- chromanoid 13y ago
  Of course, it can be embarrassing, but sometimes you are too emotional to not carry it out instantly. This display of humanity should not be frowned upon, but sympathetically ignored. If a real mental breakdown occurs, we should even get involved and help each other instead of posting it on twitter. Your victim blaming doesn't make it right, it just shows a lack of empathy.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Are you calling the woman abusing a flight attendant and the couple loudly breaking up on a rooftop "victims", or are you just referring to the more mundane events?
    - chromanoid 13y ago
      Of course they are victims. Only because somebody does something, which might be annoying or in case of Diane offending (for the flight personnel), does not mean they become outlawed and can be rightfully, publicly and globally punished for their missteps by anyone who likes to do so. I think you only see black and white instead of the whole spectrum of the human condition.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I really don't get it, so: victims of what? I'm guessing the answer is something like "public shaming", in which case this does not make sense to me. It's like saying that a person who hits himself on the thumb with a hammer is a victim of assault and battery. They caused their own public shaming when they made a public spectacle of themselves. The tweeters just magnified it. It would have happened even without them.
        chromanoid 13y ago
        In your example the hammer is controlled by yourself, while there are always other people behind public humiliation. When somebody hits you with the hammer (humiliates you in public), is this your own fault? You really blame the victims here. You say it's their own fault for being picked on, but this is simply not the case. They had a bad day, that does not justify anything. The state is for punishment. Do you blame rape victims for being attractive and for wearing "risky" clothes?
        mikeash 13y ago
        Well, I'll explain my thinking and maybe you can tell me where you think I got it wrong without resorting to bad analogies involving rape. Public shaming requires two elements: a shameful act, and an audience. The shameful act is usually provided by the person in question. I say "usually" because there are cases where people are shamed for rumors or outright lies. I think we can both agree that, in this case, the person provided it themselves. The audience, in acts usually considered to be "public shaming", is provided by a second party. That is, the shameful act would have been private, but then another party brought it to light by providing an audience. In this case, the audience was already there by virtue of the environment in which the person carried out their shameful act. The tweeters enlarged this audience, but they did not provide it as might have been the case if they had been tweeting a private conversation. Even without them, these people would have still shown their shame to a couple hundred other people. Note that I am not saying they "deserved" this treatment or anything like that, I'm just saying that they made it happen themselves. The people everybody is getting angry at for posting the events weren't even necessary for it.
- parallelist 13y ago
  Why? The purpose of embarrassment, as I understand it, is to create emotional significance for something that negatively affects others. So unless you are talking about something vulgar or being offensive you haven’t done anything socially remiss. This isn’t to say I condone live tweeting of behavior that is socially remiss. In those instances one should think carefully about how to influence that person to do better. Humiliating them on social network is not it. You lose any moral high ground the second you do that. Personally speaking I also think very carefully about whether it is worth my time.
aaronem 13y ago
I actually knew a guy who used to do exactly that, back before he got his nose broken. I was curious about that; he was awfully vague about the circumstances, but allowed as how it'd happened in a Safeway checkstand line. As may be, the experience did wonders for his circumspection and consideration of others. Didn't help him much, of course, this being the same fellow who used to say that enforcing other people's marriage vows was no concern of his, which worked great for him right up until he got shot. Quite a funeral, that was -- I never in my life saw so many flower arrangements around a casket, or so few with cards attached.

chromanoid 13y ago

Thank you for the example, it's hard to understand that so many people cannot come up with such scenarios. They are proving a total lack of empathy.

mikeash 13y ago

I would feel extremely embarrassed and stupid at having carried out such a private conversation in a place where people could obviously overhear me, and would take care not to do so again.

chromanoid 13y ago
Of course, it can be embarrassing, but sometimes you are too emotional to not carry it out instantly. This display of humanity should not be frowned upon, but sympathetically ignored. If a real mental breakdown occurs, we should even get involved and help each other instead of posting it on twitter. Your victim blaming doesn't make it right, it just shows a lack of empathy.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Are you calling the woman abusing a flight attendant and the couple loudly breaking up on a rooftop "victims", or are you just referring to the more mundane events?
  - chromanoid 13y ago
    Of course they are victims. Only because somebody does something, which might be annoying or in case of Diane offending (for the flight personnel), does not mean they become outlawed and can be rightfully, publicly and globally punished for their missteps by anyone who likes to do so. I think you only see black and white instead of the whole spectrum of the human condition.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I really don't get it, so: victims of what? I'm guessing the answer is something like "public shaming", in which case this does not make sense to me. It's like saying that a person who hits himself on the thumb with a hammer is a victim of assault and battery. They caused their own public shaming when they made a public spectacle of themselves. The tweeters just magnified it. It would have happened even without them.
      - chromanoid 13y ago
        In your example the hammer is controlled by yourself, while there are always other people behind public humiliation. When somebody hits you with the hammer (humiliates you in public), is this your own fault? You really blame the victims here. You say it's their own fault for being picked on, but this is simply not the case. They had a bad day, that does not justify anything. The state is for punishment. Do you blame rape victims for being attractive and for wearing "risky" clothes?
        mikeash 13y ago
        Well, I'll explain my thinking and maybe you can tell me where you think I got it wrong without resorting to bad analogies involving rape. Public shaming requires two elements: a shameful act, and an audience. The shameful act is usually provided by the person in question. I say "usually" because there are cases where people are shamed for rumors or outright lies. I think we can both agree that, in this case, the person provided it themselves. The audience, in acts usually considered to be "public shaming", is provided by a second party. That is, the shameful act would have been private, but then another party brought it to light by providing an audience. In this case, the audience was already there by virtue of the environment in which the person carried out their shameful act. The tweeters enlarged this audience, but they did not provide it as might have been the case if they had been tweeting a private conversation. Even without them, these people would have still shown their shame to a couple hundred other people. Note that I am not saying they "deserved" this treatment or anything like that, I'm just saying that they made it happen themselves. The people everybody is getting angry at for posting the events weren't even necessary for it.
parallelist 13y ago
Why? The purpose of embarrassment, as I understand it, is to create emotional significance for something that negatively affects others. So unless you are talking about something vulgar or being offensive you haven’t done anything socially remiss. This isn’t to say I condone live tweeting of behavior that is socially remiss. In those instances one should think carefully about how to influence that person to do better. Humiliating them on social network is not it. You lose any moral high ground the second you do that. Personally speaking I also think very carefully about whether it is worth my time.

aaronem 13y ago

I actually knew a guy who used to do exactly that, back before he got his nose broken. I was curious about that; he was awfully vague about the circumstances, but allowed as how it'd happened in a Safeway checkstand line. As may be, the experience did wonders for his circumspection and consideration of others. Didn't help him much, of course, this being the same fellow who used to say that enforcing other people's marriage vows was no concern of his, which worked great for him right up until he got shot. Quite a funeral, that was -- I never in my life saw so many flower arrangements around a casket, or so few with cards attached.