This makes me appreciate Barak Obama even more than I did before. Nobody got put through the wringer like that man, and yet he came out always smiling and with a clever quip. He was one of a kind, and I wish he was still our very 'positive' president.
8
Let’s forget silly social-media shamers for a moment. It is all very well to say that we should calculate the aggregate effect of our actions if we want to be decent people. But often time-consuming calculations are a way of avoiding conclusions we already know. We are all Harmless Torturers because the slow procession of life already contains an element of torture along with all its other inestimable qualities. We come home weary after a punishing day—a day in which we found it necessary to punish ourselves and others in order to pursue the good we feel born to serve. Every torturer thinks, or at least says, that his cruelty is justified by the greater good. Sometimes he is even right. The question we should all ask ourselves is: can we live knowing that every breath we draw causes pain to others?
1
Given the popularity of and outpouring of sentiment regarding the current documentary "Won't You Be My Neighbor?," I wonder if the same folks who have been swept up by the film might want to take a moment before posting their comments to ask themselves, "What would Misterogers say?"
2
Twitter is about as harmful to the body politic as, oh, a mosquito bite. Now, if you want to talk about the harmful collective effects of our actions, you should center entirely, one hundred percent, on global climate change, which is like dousing the body politic with gasoline and lighting a match. But to address this is to address a collective system - capitalism. Which of course would go way out of the track of the implicit conservative politics in this piece, which is mainly a rhetorical dance around the word "uppity" - those uppity plebes! But as long as we concentrate on trivia, we can ignore what the earth is telling us, so I guess there is a use to this kind of distraction.
1
Yes and no. There are problems with public shaming, albeit the problem is not identical to going up an electrical dial. First off, shaming hurts on one end empaths and HSPs in particular, but on the other the effect on sociopaths is moderate to nil.
It's also true that online shaming and online boycott campaigns can be quite effective on powerful and abusive people. Shaming trophy hunters publicly that hunts endangered animals in Africa in one. First, once the acts (of the trophy hunter) becomes public people can decide not to use their services. Second, it might serve as a deterrent against those that plan similar atrocities.
Online shaming and boycotts have also resulted in that some fairly bad media personalities having - very deservedly - lost their jobs. For instance, Roger Ailes, BIll O'Reilly, and Harvey Weinstein.
Then what about the negative consequences? Well why not take a stand and defend the person being shamed, by pointing out that it's based on a misconception and unproportional. For instance, recently a person named James Gunn at Disney was forced out by a shaming campaign by something that might be called the "Alt-Right Social Justice Warriors". (Bloom and Jordan seems to be unaware of these for some reason?)
Finally, would Hitler have changed his ways due public shaming in social media in 2018? Probably not. But it might have served the opposition, which would have been more vigilant and ready to provide a more effective political opposition in 1932.
3
The writer states that, even with its downsides, online shaming has moral and social uses. I don’t see any usefulness in calling each other names over the internet. It bears close resemblance to name-calling on children’s playgrounds. Like kids, the partipants look for the most ideologically potent words favored by its side to hurl at the other side. Instead of “poopy face”, your side cheers at your saying white people are “groveling goblins” or, to go back a decade, calling feminists “feminazis.” The nazis word is thrown around with complete abandon by every side. And like unsupervised kids we like to gather our gang around us to increase the volume of bullying taunts. You can’t call these verbal food fights satire. Even though satire makes use of some mockery and ridicule, its best expression, like Swift’s Modest Proposal, engages the reason, takes us to concrete realities and human behaviors, and impresses and wins us over with its subtle artistic creativity. It doesn’t inflame the other side or flaunt moral superiority. Punishing the other side with ridicule and moral denunciation and preening over our own sense of virtuous superiority are immature mindless behavior.
2
I don't see the problem. Don't participate in Facebook -- that's for high-school kids saying they like each other. Or on Twitter -- that's for Tweety Bird and Sylvester. Try to be an adult.
6
It's all internet. Nietzsche said something like, the problem with democracy is that everybody thinks they have a right to every problem. Well, the internet now puts every problem, real and fake, before us, all day, every day, and invites us to respond--we do. Information overload to the max; ill considered, often uninformed responses. The internet is still relatively new, we haven't learned yet how to evaluate its content, we're still having too much fun venting and slinging mud and spit wads knowing we can get away with it; we think it's fun to say what we think, or at least something we think is clever, without getting scolded or frowned on. Our involvement with, and interest in, the internet will burn out eventually. Patience, patience.
4
Of course harm-full words can cause great torment and mental anguish! Why not? They're paper bullets tipped with venom and fired with hateful precision. No one can decide for another what does or does not cause physical or emotional/mental pain. . . I thought the pen was mightier than the sword? And the mob - cowards seeking safety in numbers. Mob is an abbreviation of mobile, I believe: the rowdy masses on the move/from the Latin mobile vulgus, the excitable populace.
2
A lot of comments here are from people who don't participate in social media. Well good on you. But have you ever shined a gay person because you thought they were "weird"? Same thing. Don't pat yourself on the back just yet....
3
What about people that deliberately fan the flames of hate and bigotry for a living? ( You know who they are). They are not really "shaming" anyone; they are making inflammatory verbal attacks on people to silence valid criticism of their extremist politics. They are inciting their followers to hound and harass people to the point of physical violence.
What do you say to them, Mr. Bloom and Mr. Jordan?
3
Social media is like — It's like a look at what the human race really wants to be, deep down inside. It's how we would treat each other if there were no such thing as restraint or empathy.
Vigilantism is not a behavior decent human beings should ever be part of... As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.
1
Question: If we cannot face the consequences of our own individual actions.... how can we face the consequences of our collective actions? Isn't that why we have the liar in chief in our White House? Our society loves and lives by lies...they work as justification for our individual and collective need to never feel responsible for the consequences our insatiable, meaningless, gluttonous wants.
1
Read Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery". There is nothing new under the sun.
3
Very thoughtful. Thank you.
My view is that participation in social media is participation in a process of torture of someone. If you participate in social media then you are the problem.
Get off of Facebook. Don't read Tweets. etc. etc.
If someone has a problem with you, set up your life so they are forced to confront you face to face. And you do the same.
3
What the author describes was well known to the ancient sages. The Book of Job contains a clear warning: do not let a spirit of judgment entice you into sitting in the seat of a scoffer.
The purpose of this warning is straight forward: as soon as you become part of the mob judging the supposed transgression, you open yourself to judgment. If I start pointing out your faults, all of my faults are fair game too.
Moreover, keep in mind that Credibility to the lips is like Virginity to the genitalia. When you lose it. It is gone - for good!
2
Even when you think you're doing the right thing, you may be going about it the wrong way. Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.
Why not say — as some slanderously claim that we say — "Let us do evil that good may result?" Their condemnation is just!
— Paul, Romans 3:8
Jordan and Bloom write, "public shaming can have positive effects; sometimes the angry mob gets it right — punching up and hitting the right target."
Perhaps this exception is an attempt to sweeten their message... but I'm sorry, I don't buy this exception. If one is "punching up and hitting," one is being hurtful. It is verbal vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is bad: for the person attacked and for the attacker who is training him/herself to act thoughtlessly and out of anger.
If anger arises in us, we must deal with it. But acting out of anger almost always exacerbates the situation. How we act--and what we say or "post" or "tweet"-- should always be "skillful," that is: consciously crafted to help, not to exacerbate, the situation.
1
In their article about 'turning the dial,' or shaming others, Matthew Jordan and Paul Bloom come to the conclusion that basically everyone is what they call a 'harmless torturer,' or someone calling someone or something out or writing unflattering things about a certain person or subject.
They are half right.
Their article address the ugly side of social media in which online users use the internet to comment, share, or like content that 'mobs' people who deserve it and even those who are innocent. They assert that most partake in 'mobbing' because of their morals and that those 'mobbing' people believe the subject deserves it.
While some people do this all the time, to feel good or show off, some might do it without even realizing it. Although some may agree that a lot of people fall under this category, it's not fair to continuously call someone a 'harmless torturer' automatically, even if they might have said something rude. Not everyone is perfect, therefore not everyone should be considered a 'harmless torturer' because everyone makes mistakes.
As the authors note, harmless torture is very prevalent in social media, and in a world where social media has many forms, it is important to remember that when wanting to call someone a 'harmless torturer' without knowing the full story. Ironically, calling someone a harmless torturer could be considered harmless torture, but the authors owned up to just that.
1
As I read through your examples, I found myself thinking, but that dentist killed a collared lion! But that communications professor asked a student journalist to be removed!
In other words, I was finding myself making exceptions for things I found truly vile. And that's when the light went on.
Maybe I did, and do, find those and many other things truly vile. But so do a lot of other people, about a lot of other things.
But incrementally turning that dial a thousand times...
Thank you for an eye opening and thought provoking article.
6
We are living in an era where some people seem to be running gleefully and knowingly towards Omelas -- instead of walking away. (LeGuin)
Professor Bloom, This sounds like solid advice. I'm going to give it a try.
2
I confess I am often guilty of trying to shame one victim in these comments sections of the Times, but alas, my intended victim, Donald Trump, seems immune to my efforts. After all, if Stephen Colbert can't affect him, what hope do I have? But the comparison with dialing up pain by small incremental actions is quite appropriate here. Yes, it is rather like an angry mob, but the self righteousness in this instance seems quite justified. I know it's not how democracy is supposed to work as civil debate and recognizing opposing points of view are supposed to prevail. But at this moment, if we are not shouting "Stop, he's a criminal!" we are tolerating a crime.
4
The "Information Age" has actually delivered a tsunami of misinformation.
The man who currently occupies the Oval Office is exhibit A for the perils resulting from that condition.
3
There is something kind of unsettling about this piece, and then I realized the authors' examples all lean rightward with their finger-pointing. The lone left-wing example targets a journalist, a favorite right-wing target. Where are the Alex Jones and Breitbart exhortations to violence?
4
@common sense advocate My thoughts exactly...interesting about how all the examples were right-leaning...
Harmless torturing shows up in so many ways. Aggressive traffic maneuvers... music blasting from cars... hyperpartisanship… It doesn't only torture individuals; it poisons civil society.
Thank you, Prof. Bloom. I will do my best to be a Helpful Cooperator, in which I turn the dial in the opposite direction.
2
This makes a great argument for generally avoiding the use of snarl words and labels when expressing disagreement.
We usually know, I think, when we’re using a labeling word that evokes powerful emotions like anger, hatred, or shame. Often when such words bear the weight of our argument we’re also assuming what we’re purporting to prove. One had better be right and have a good specific reason to justify that sort of behavior. If nothing else one can usually make one’s case rationally and with reference to facts, and then add that, if you’re right, the negative label would apply.
The old Sunday School story about how a prophet indirectly, with an analogy, makes King David realize how wrong he was to put the husband of Bathsheba on the front lines of battle also comes to mind as a possible method. Of course not all analogies are good ones.
Speaking of which, on one important level the analogy with the harmless torturer doesn’t work. The point of the harmless torturer is to inflict some pain. The point of expressing disagreement is/should be to communicate. We often need people to tell us when we’re wrong. We often need to tell others that they’re wrong. If you’ve ever been around someone who is so averse to criticism that they just won’t listen to it, you probably understand some of the ways that the logic of that can work out.
3
The shaming of people on the internet for this or that reason, mob behavior to the point that the only form of criticism allowed is what the mob decides, and the relationship of this to forms of torture and more serious effects on the human body and mind?
Life is certainly not without humans causing one another pain, in fact the entire removal of this type of pain appears impossible. But one of the greatest signs of civilization is that society as a whole learns to become sophisticated about the pain it causes itself, the pain humans cause one another.
It takes centuries for a society to learn proper disciplinary techniques (actions on the human body), accurate and honest intellectual criticism (actions on the mind), to "play fair" and know when pain is being used for growth and when it's just plain being used to cut people down, lead to diminished human beings.
The most successful human societies do not descend to mob behavior, they are complex practices of developing individual potential and forming ever more complex groups of behavior. It appears the internet in some respects is lowering the level of civilization, that people do not know how to coordinate themselves on the internet in sophisticated fashion.
But that could change, we hope, when people get better at it, if especially the coming generations take to it with will, energy, intellect and practice. It might be similar to learning to play in an orchestra or other form of complex group behavior.
2
Talking about real life now. People, mostly younger men, having spent to much time on social media where anything can be said don't realize they are being insulting. When you correct them are usually not willing to admit the slight but get angrier. Being more than twice the age of these people I have to admit I'm meaner than they are. The difference I found is young guys are willing to take it further with an old man than we would ever when we were young.
Jimmy Kimmel vs VP Pence is a good example. When young guy threatens an older guy shows no class. When Kimmel wanted to call out Ted Cruz he chose a basketball game.
3
I understand the desire to draw attention to the effects of mob shaming by likening it to "torture." But doing so only cheapens and distorts what torture truly is. I am sure that torture victims would have preferred being the target of ugly tweets rather than what they actually experienced.
I am a former elected official. I got savaged on a number of occasions with unkind remarks. That's one of the costs of involvement in public life. Social media is a form of 'public square.' I think many users fail to understand that posting anything, no matter how innocuous, is a public act and therefore encumbers the risk of public scrutiny and sanction. Social media sites should be required to disclose that fact in the same way cigarette packs are required to display warning labels.
I am more concerned for persons who are victims of weaponized social media. "Permit Patty" is case in point. Mom cynically used her 8 year old daughter to flout sales restrictions designed to protect vendors who paid for the rights. That fact was lost in the social media maelstrom mom orchestrated over Patty's alleged racism for simply asking police to enforce the law. The problem wasn't Patty; the problem was the way mom was using her child to make a buck. Our laws should Permit Patty to be able to hold mom civilly liable for weaponizing social media.
4
@Gary F.S. Permit Patty sold cannabis products which is illegal in New York and in the US. and it was not the Mom using the 8 year old daughter to sell water, but the daughter herself selling it. Permit Patty didn't call the cops because she was concerned about the legal water vendors, but, as she said herself, because the water sellers were annoying her with their repetitive pitch.
1
@Nellie S The incident occurred in San Francisco, California, not New York City. Permit Patty was CEO of a company that legally sells medical cannabis. Permit Patty didn't call the authorities, she only threatned to because both the child and her mom were creating a disturbance by screaming at passers-by.
These were the facts overlooked by the mob when it rushed to grab their pitchforks and torches. What Permit Patty should have done was called Child Protective Services. It was the mom, Erin Austin, who should be shamed for using her daughter to fill in the blanks in her paycheck.
In addition to outright insults and shaming - among teen and tween girls I've seen a disturbing, pernicious pattern on social media: a year or year and 1/2 ago they posted at least some photos of their sports teams or artsy scenery or graduations-now it's all close-ups of faces, bikini shots, low-cut dresses -and trying to look as thin as possible. Each post gets tons of replies reinforcing that only their looks matter - gorge, model, so thin...they need to know they're worth more than that.
7
@common sense advocate But those are today's society's values. Completely.
Facebook is mostly garbage. Putting derogatory remarks on someone on facebook. Why ? -more garbage.
4
Nope, we still just a large conglomerate of IDIOTS!
2
After almost a decade on Facebook and a solid 5 years as a very heavy Facebook user (including being an admin of several groups with 100,000+ membership) I'm rapidly arriving at the conclusion that social media is bad for humanity. I have a couple of very small, tight knit and supportive groups that show the best part of social media, and I like seeing pictures and hearing milestones of friends who live in other cities or countries.
But with each passing year I just get more and more convinced that social media is a net negative to humanity. The way it encourages us to interact with strangers in the worst possible way, the time suck, the way it reinforces narrow and often non-factual worldviews, the mobs, not to mention the fact that our current president probably owes his spot in the Oval Office to social media bots -- it just goes on and on.
I have deleted all social media apps off my phone and I'm going through a "detox" of smartphone and social media use. It feels really needed.
15
Please note that for the "harmless torturers" thought-experiment Derek Parfit was indebted to (then Oxford philosopher) Jonathan Glover, whom Parfit duly acknowledges. Perhaps Mr.Bloom and his Yale colleague(s) can do the same?
2
This same argument is also a very powerful argument against what is being called microagressions. Read a book like Citizen by Claudia Rankine. You can possibly excuse and/or brush off any one of the scenes, just like the harmless torturer, but when you realize that each of these scenes plays out quite often (for some, multiple times per day) to every Black person in America, you realize why so many are screaming like the "harmless torture" victim.
7
Certain actions like "whistling at women on the street or jokingly using offensive language" are immoral whether one person or a thousand people are engaged in it.
Shaming someone on the internet without doing a reasonable investigation as to whether that person deserves to be shamed is immoral whether one person or a thousand people are engaging in such shaming.
Joining in the public shaming of someone who may deserve it without considering whether your contribution may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and results in the object of the shaming committing suicide or suffering another unintended or disproportionately severe consequence is immoral.
These are not difficult concepts.
6
Compare with Brett Stephens today and your Editorial Board decisions...
4
Also there are the media . Articles about one particular professional mistake, misdemeamor or problem imply that all doctors, lawyers, teachers are similarly incompetent, greedy or just plain bad. This is horrendously demoralizing and in my case was a large part of why I retired early.
2
As usual, somehow it's only liberal social pressures and liberal norm-building which garners this kind of criticism...
1
And, regrettably I posted a snarky reply to Vesuviano. It was too easy to “through a stone” just as the essay describes.
This is my public apology to Vesuviano. There was no need for my comment.
Ted
2
Thanks. Shaming lowers intelligence. Is that really what you want to do? In fact, if you are shaming someone, it indicates you are triggered, which blocks access to the prefrontal cortex, blocking higher ordered thinking. It indicates an external locus of control, meaning in that moment you lack leadership qualities. However, shame is pervasive...and as a result, so is a fixed mindset. A fixed mindset is where your pride makes it hard to learn anything because you don't want to look stupid - the end result being you are not learning.
Seinfeld was right - no hugs, no learning. The recipe for healthy human development starts with generating a safe base through caring relationships.
So does this mean to be permissive? No - that is black and white thinking. Learn critical thinking skills and develop the ability to determine fallacious arguments, rhetorical devices and inprovable premises, and then like Einstein said - come at the problem from a different level of consciousness, by directing their communications tactics and their weaknesses - with respect - instead of letting their icky mood influence you and bring you down.
Bet that's what Ms Obama means when she says, when they go low, we go high. The 7 core world class leadership qualities are: partnership, accountability, commitment, integrity, acknowledgement, diversity and vulnerability. That's right, it takes courage to be a leader. Shame is lowest effort possible.
Perfectionism is playing not to lose. Be a winner.
3
I would hate to have society be moderated by an angry mob, even if they do sometimes get it right and create a popular "justice".
2
Online shaming is like the Islamic ritual of public stoning -- just without the stones.
4
One book for all to read, again: Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners" (1996). Ordinary Germans looked the other way, just as all to many Americans look the other. Willful ignorance is dangerous.
3
For an example of the Harmless Torturer in action (and getting a wildly exaggerated comeuppance), watch the "Hated In the Nation" episode of "Black Mirror."
Very-thought provoking.
3
The article does contain a thread of a suggestion on how to combat aggressive online mob mentality - on how to handle the permanently Outraged: "Social shunning is another case, torture through the accumulation of omissions". Yes We Can! ignore and isolate these people who constantly attack and spew vitriol. I'm not talking about folks who say some disagreeable things now and again. I'm talking about members of the Outrage Brigade, who probably account for 90% of the "torturing" attacks while making up less than 10% of the population. Their dirty little secret is that they NEED the attention and if the better among us ignore them, they will TURN ON EACH OTHER! They always eat each other when they run out of outsiders.
3
I am familiar with the college experiments. After reading about them, I always wondered what I would do. This opinion piece is the first time that the harmless torturer experiments has been linked to social media. I felt a sense of "Aha!" in reading this. I left Facebook before the news of its involvement with Cambridge Analytica came to light; FB was getting too contentious for me. I still have a Twitter account but visit it rarely. Last time was last week and I felt it had gotten meaner.
I believe that our collective hypocrisy in "letting our negative views hang out" on social media is because we lack a sense of unity, which is to say, a sense of spiritual fellow-feeling with others no matter their race, class, or political views. Evangelical Christianity has, for the most part, set up camp with politics. Yet spirituality transcends that. It has to if we are to search our hearts for the harmless torturer and evict him.
7
Let us not forget that children are participating I this. They have been raised in this environment and encouraged by schools who like to see themselves as so techno advanced. The problem is now that this world exists outside of the watch of parents, teachers and other guardians. Oh. And forget about learning when you can snap chat all day.
3
It's hard to quantify the pleasure I take from avoiding the "savagery" of Twitter by simply not taking part, but I can assure you that it's considerable.
But one wonders how long that will last? Take Facebook, for instance. More and more often, in order to visit a link that interests me, I'm required to navigate there via Facebook. Hence, I opened a Facebook account for that sole purpose. There's the absolute minimum there - just enough to be "accepted" by Zuckerman et al - but how long will it be before some pimply-faced, teenaged refugee from Radio Shack selects my account for abuse via some mystery algorithm?
What would restrain him? (Nothing.) Why would he want to do such a thing? (For the power trip, or just for giggles.)
Where Facebook went, can Twitter be far behind? Will those of us who choose (or chose) to remain out of the fray by simply refusing to take part be dragged up onto the pillory to perhaps be mobbed, merely because we wish to read articles and theses that interest us?
There was a time, long ago, when thoughtful people feared that the incredible miracle of television would become a "Wasteland" in the hands of those pursuing fame and fortune of any kind. (See: Donald Trump and the concept of "branding".)
Now we have an even more incredible miracle in the form of the Internet. But I can already see the parched ground and dust devils of another Wasteland forming.
2
Should be required reading for every entering college freshmen. Also, anybody who has a beating heart.
If the authors choose to frame a campus leader requesting "muscle" to forcibly remove a journalist from a public event on public property -- thereby endorsing battery and limiting constitutional rights -- as "a left-wing professor who asked her friends to expel a journalist from a protest, " then I'm afraid there's nothing to their argument.
Sometimes bad people do bad things that the law will not weigh in on. In those cases, the crowd is certainly free to express their outrage in any legal way. That's the beauty of free speech.
If the worst thing that happens to a demonstrably terrible person is people tweeting mean things or -- gasp! -- holding them accountable for their actions, then they've lived a privileged life indeed. One would hope they've learned a valuable lesson that will serve them well in the future.
Calling this "torture" of any sort trivializes the suffering of millions of innocents.
I say exactly the opposite: humans are the most immoral species in the world. Malice leads to torture for pleasure and to exert naked power. Please examine American culture, for example.
4
If one side in an argument starts hurling rocks and there is no authority to police civility, at some point you're going to have to choose between allowing the bullies to run the world or picking up a rock yourself.
2
'Harmless torturers', 'shaming on Facebook', etc.,. It's all too esoteric for me. I'm more worried about the mainstream media's silence on yesterday's Saudi bombing of a school bus ion Saada Province, Yemen, that killed 43 children and injured 61.
So why isn't the NYT 'publicly shaming' the Saudis?
If the mainstream media are too scared to set an example to all by 'naming and shaming' war criminals, why should I pay attention to an Op-Ed about social dysfunction?
Did the Yemeni children suffer less than those 'named and shamed' on Facebook?
Let's re-set our priorities, highlight the abominable crimes and then focus on the societal ones.
7
@Hamid Varzi
False choice.
2
@Hamid Varzi I appreciate your outrage, but the New York Times did cover it. No, they didn't come out and say "war crime," but the article made it pretty clear how outrageous this attack was: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/world/middleeast/yemen-airstrike-scho...
4
@David
Thanks, I missed it, but the ending should never have been published:
"In a statement released by the Saudi state news agency, the coalition said .... called the attack “a legitimate military operation” and accused the Houthis of using children as human shields.
The strikes were “carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law,” the statement said."
Clearly designated school buses were being used as "human shields"???
You are correct also on another point: The NYT expressed no outrage, and the abomination was deemed unworthy of a major Editorial.
There is nothing wrong with expressing strong disapproval of someone who is mean to others or who promotes bigotry or who circulates false information, and the like.
I wonder if comment sections ought have more than the tick box, "Approve" or "Like". Perhaps a few more boxes would aid the caliber of discussion: "___poorly written -- ___lacking in facts -- ___inappropriate personal attack --- ___not logical".
I may agree with the conclusion urged by a commenting person, but I may also see any or all of those deficits, in their comment. Perhaps, if readers were given an efficient opportunity to be more judgemental about the comments of others, we can start raising the level of reader comments.
1
@HJB
That sidesteps the point. For example, let's say you come across something where a person has casually referred to a group of people of some Asian heritage using the "O" word. Of course, the attacks will come mercifully and swiftly from the centers of tolerance and kindness, San Francisco, Berkeley, various college towns. You could join in and thumbs-up. You could assume bigotry. You can assume all of the worst. Or you could recognize the ignorance of the attackers and their lack of perspective and empathy. You can refuse to join in. Perhaps, if you have the opportunity, you could write a kind and sensible note to the person acknowledging that you don't know them and that they probably simply didn't know that use of the "O" word in reference to people is now considered offensive.
Lots of examples like that.
1
All? No.
I believe in original sin- the idea that adult human beings know when they’re being wicked and hurtful yet chose to act that way. I rarely believe adults when they plead ignorance of how their actions impact others. Some areas of social media are polluted by hurtful comments- comments made by adults with a willful intent to cause distress and harm.
But don’t lump me in with those miscreants and blame it on some technology-amplified, innate human instinct. It’s a choice, and one’s choice of behavior demonstrates one’s character.
5
The online situation would be a lot different if people had to use their real names and locations instead of hiding behind anonymous handles. The only exceptions I'd make are for those writing from inside tyrannical regimes.
8
It is hard to feel a lot of sympathy for Mark Zuckerberg's dilemma with Facebook because his first venture into social media was to post stolen photographs of women on a site and allow people to rank the women for attractiveness.
This appealed to not only the objectivization of women but even worse to malice, spite and intentional harm to individuals So he should have known that Facebook would end up being divisive and socially harmful rather than inclusive. He was no innocent naif.
As T.S. Eliot said "In my beginning is my end."
9
OMG somebody actually noticed how much 'fun' this all is:
"(a) self-described former social justice warrior writing under the pseudonym Barrett Wilson described the thrill he felt in his mobbing days: “Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation.”
The dopamine rush is absolutely huge. Kudos to Barrett for being this self-aware.
11
This is entirely spot on.
Two points:
1) I have been telling my friends for years that the court of public opinion on the internet will do more harm than good. Without due process of some kind - any kind, even simply personally reserving judgment when two sides say opposite things - we are lynching people, plain and simple. And lynching, regardless of true facts of the crime, does nothing but erode a society.
2) If you would like proof of that erosion, click on the Quillette link, then scroll to the comment section. You have to read through 1 or 2; after that, the true colors really start coming out.
[Side note: I question the true nature of that article. To start, it is crazy to assume an ex-member of the NCAAP, ACLU, whatever a "social justice industry" organization is. would actually call themselves a "social justice crusader." Crusader simply replaces "warrior." No one I known or have seen uses SJW in a non-derogatory way. That would be quite the 180...]
The flood of social change occurred, and is occurring. Erosion happens. That leads to more flooding.
Somehow, we have to put in some controls and limit the damage. Acting decently sure is a great place to start.
1
There’s a wonderful quote, “ In a world where you can be anything, be kind.” We can demonize social media and one another, or we can’t choose to be kind.
People who are mean, are hurting. The old adage “hurt people, hurt people” is true. I have a personal ule about what I post on Facebook . I’m aware that many friends do not have the means to go on fabulous vacations, so I rarely post about those. Don’t brag, it’s rude. But many do not have nor have been taught manners.
Be kind. It’s a choice and not very difficult.
7
By Jacob Riis — “Look at a stone cutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without so much a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred-and-first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not the last blow that did it, but all that had gone before.” What workers know from experience cannot be dismissed as “philosophical.”
4
For an illustration at the head of this article, Mr. Adam Maida could have chosen one of the versions of "Martyrium of Saint Sebastian": the number of arrows piercing his body varies from zero (pre-execution) to a horrendously large number, making him look like a porcupine.
One thing that several people seem to be missing is that the collective dog-pile of hatred on social media is not the only consequence that many of these people face. In several cases people have subsequently lost their jobs for an offensive/poorly worded/misunderstood tweet. Furthermore, given the publicity of the tweet and the subsequent mob reaction, I suspect that these people are not easily re-employed in their original field.
Being part of a mob is fun. It's also a terrible way to mete out justice which is why we have a judicial system.
Claiming that you're only partaking in "social shaming" and that it is the last resort of the populace to deal with unfavorable ideas or actions is (1) saying that we need some massive legal reforms to punish people for saying things, abandoning the first amendment and (2) is merely a way to assuage the guilt of participation in a collective action that has led to the destruction of people's livelihoods. If you think that people deserve the latter (destruction of livelihood, complete loss of social standing etc. for an offensive, or even merely disagreeable, statement) then our laws should be changed so that it isn't left to the mob to levy justice. If you think the justice system shouldn't be doing that, maybe it isn't just to begin with.
2
The use of the collective "we" throughout the article gives a misleading sense that it is an analysis of a universal moral dilemma. And that may be a product of the fact that social media users (who may include the bulk of the readers) operate under an illusion that their arena is the entire world. Statistics like "two billion users" lends apparent substance to that impression. But the activities of the vast majority of those are most likely sporadic, personal, benign and trivial.
But it is much harder to determine how many people are active participants in this bizarre arena. The real issue is not the rantings of the committed participants, but the fact that these antics are taken seriously by those who should be showing more substance. These include the mainstream media and the important economic and social institutions of society. In previous times, how many crude comments from anonymous or unknown contributors would be displayed as inserts in major news and opinion articles? Would powerful corporations fire employees in response to a fusillade of abuse from an online mob? Would they respond abjectly to casual threats of a boycott on any trivial pretext?
By all means, the denizens of social media should be able to rave away as as much as they like, and occasionally we may learn something useful. But it is the weakness of serious people and institutions that gives them their power and enables them to be so disruptive.
4
One Internet moment shouldn’t define a person’s life.
4
You write “…we wish to see immoral agents get their comeuppance. And this is grounded in sound evolutionary logic: If we weren’t disposed to punish or exclude bad actors, there would be no cost to being a bad actor, and cooperative societies couldn’t get off the ground.”
This sounds like teleological group selection. It’s definitely not sound evolutionary logic. You suggest that getting cooperative societies off the ground was a goal that the disposition to inflict costs on bad actors evolved to bring about, which is nonsense I’m astounded to hear from you. The disposition to punish bad actors must have evolved for other reasons (by enhancing the fitness of individuals, as you mention in your next paragraph), and cooperative societies getting off the ground was just a happy by-product.
4
You point out the flaw in this otherwise excellent piece. The "evolutionary logic" is merely the post hoc rationalization typical of so much evo psych.
1
To make the merry-go-round go faster
So that everyone needs to hang on tight
Just to keep from being thrown to the wolves
-They Might Be Giants
Stay off the merry-go-round and never run with the wolves.
This is a timely and thought-provoking article but I think it does not go far enough. Despite their increased frequency internet lynch mobs are still an extreme case. Social media used for its intended purpose has been shown to cause anxiety, depression and isolation in people consuming it. If we are constantly creating content by means of status update, instagram posts, and tweets we may be "Harmless Torturers" on a daily basis by creating the content that harms the consumers: our closest friends and family.
2
If you never look at "social media", you won't know or care what people say about you there. It won't hurt you.
And you will have time for more constructive activities.
4
Two easy solutions for any adult:
1. Ignore social media
2. Put the "torture" into a little psychological box labelled, "Worthless Nonsense." That it is exactly what it is.
Footnote: For children, treat as a very serious problem.
11
Calling someone sexist on twitter and making a rape threat on twitter, however non-credible either may be, are not equivalent. One is a arguable point of view -- no matter how many likes it gets, it's still a point of view. The other is a threat of harm. I feel this article is trying to draw a false equivalence, even as it claims it isn't.
11
Try to simply remember that those of us who are without sin should cast the first stone.
4
It seems the writers have not mentioned that the possibly the most influential, and most harmful, user of public shaming is President Trump.
Trump's tweeting has influenced negative societal opinion, behaviors and public policy that hurt innocent people who are not part of the social media game.
Perhaps the counter-social shaming is the only way to allow a child to swim in a pool with others, or for someone to be able to speak Spanish in supermarket without humiliation.
1
"Social media" is a cosmetic term used to peddle access to an opportunity for anti-social behavior.
It's like disguising imitation intelligence as "artificial intelligence" and fake video as "virtual reality".
Those who buy into it deserve it.
4
Cutthroat capitalism demands torture of the poor and the powerless, to "incentivize" them to work for peanuts always in fear of homelessness and extreme poverty, for to live with constant fear and the shame of being of the outcast caste, is very painful.
Hugh
3
The puritans had public shaming. New England was the better for it.
1
@Rhporter
You mean mob action like in Salem?
1
@Rhporter Would you like to bring back the Salem witch trials, too?
1
The only rational place to have senstivity to pain is in your wallet.
1
Would this piece be stronger if it looked at the effects of the bad behavior on the person delivering the behavior? As social media's mob-enabling tendencies lead more and more people to do things that they would not have done otherwise, we could get a growing body of compromised people.
Also, is this really new? I go back to a recent NYT article describing the apologies of a southern newspapers for publicizing upcoming lynchings. They did this serving thousands of readers, and hundreds would show up at the lynching. Is standing in a cheering crowd of hundreds while someone is lynched just another version of the "harmless torturer"?
No drop of water believes that it is to blame for the flood.
13
The authors are precisely right in stating that the problem with public shaming is not its existence, but its targets!
In most need of shaming are the soft, callow men of a generation that has grown up believing they can say whatever horrendous thing they want on the internet as “just a joke.”
This group, made of boys who wave the swastika ironically and believe rape threats are “trolling,” believe that they are harmless pranksters misunderstood by naïve onlookers. Ironic, since they are the naïve ones, raised in a sheltered lifestyle in which they believe radical movements are impossibilities and silly jokes, and that their speech has no real consequences.
But it does have consequences. They provide cover to real monsters, form a base for recruitment to radical movements, and derail and debase serious and important conversations.They need to be taught that posts on the internet are public speech, and that public speech has consequences. The best way to do this is to show them that their radical speech has consequences for themselves, through public shaming and chastisement.
But the authors are right - public shaming is not orchestrated by mastermind activists and organizers with clear, deserving targets, but an organic human behavior whose targeting is not precise enough for the social media age. The question is: Can we proactively modify our social behavior on a large scale? I suspect we cannot, and that we will change only after being burned severely by ourselves.
6
Clearly, something has to change with social media. Seems like every other article I read has to do with the evils of Twitter and the like. Of course, Twitter doesn't destroy people; people destroy people. Still, just as I try to avoid being around people with guns, I stay away from social media. Have a little dignity, folks! Why put yourself out there, either to be hurt or to hurt others? I can think of nothing that I have missed that was important by not being on Twitter, or Facebook, or . . . ! I need less, but better information, information that I can trust and is designed to give me information I need and want, not a daily deluge of garbage. If you wouldn't say something to someone's face, you shouldn't say it on social media. Get off of social media and get a life!
2
Opinions are torture now? Words are torture? Having endured a day or two of various stress positions designed to break a man to talking (in old military training), I can categorically say that neither opinions nor words can be construed as torture. Mental anguish, perhaps, if you're a delicate flower.
Sticks and stone may break my bones...
Also, if I write an opinion on a Fox News website I rather expect to be figuratively ripped apart by the Trump mob. I might only lose a finger in the NYT, however. Neither is anything to get bent out of shape about. We live in a world where no one can say anything without offending someone. But that offense is more often on the reader than the writer.
Trump is, of course, different in that respect. And in Trump's case: He cannot any longer complain of incivility by anyone, because a person who is forever uncivil cannot then decide which portion of civility others should adhere to.
I cannot wait to get the point where if we don't actively like an article, and don't click 'like', someone will be offended. I guess that's the next step in this.
To me, an old grizzled grunt, it seems as though normal speech has been altered to placate the more delicate flowers within society. We can no longer simply just say the truth if it might offend, we have to first cocoon it within a throng of compliments. But by that point, I'm completely lost as to what the person wants. I grew up where, Yo don't know squat and you just proved it," was normal talk.
5
I have been waiting on someone to write this article. The social shaming from the left has really reached a fever pitch. Though I've long considered myself pretty liberal, in the last few years I've really sought to distance myself from the social justice warriors because the self righteousness has really taken over what started as good intentioned criticism of what I think any objective observer can see is a society that is degrading into abject corruption. I can no longer stand to be around my friends and coworkers who co-sign onto whatever outrage of the moment has got them feeling morally superior to whoever they're shaming and shunning. It feels too much like what we, years ago, heavily criticized the religious right for doing. I figure there will be an inevitable pushback against this extremism. So I just wait for the pendulum to swing back again.
46
@Liz
Re: "I figure there will be an inevitable pushback against this extremism." Well, our president is Donald Trump. This behavior from the left that you lament was most certainly part of what put him in office.
Part of the reaction was the pushback from people who identified with those being targeted by SJW Outrage Brigades. But worse is the growing "cry wolf" symptom we've seen growing. It is a mistake to simply think Trump has emboldened hardened racists. No, the ongoing reaction to excessive SJW tactics is to swell the ranks of people who just don't care, since they figure they'd be attacked for just being themselves regardless of how they act. Just being (non-Hispanic) white became something to be shouted down when an opinion diverged even slightly from orthodoxy (and the orthodoxy itself morphs).
@Liz Unfortunately, as it is the nature of pendula to swing between extreme positions, unless stopped, you may not like where it goes next.
So, to you, the problem is those on the "left" standing up for justice too much? Anything to say about the torrents of vitriol, racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. from the right?
Are We All ‘Harmless Torturers’ Now?
[ The moment I find this sort of stereotyping headline, I know nonsense will follow. I am not about to be told what I am by a writer who knows nothing about me. "We" are nothing that can be meanly stereotyped as "harmless torturers." ]
3
Missing from this analysis is a workable definition of ethical shaming in service of creating a moral society and shaming that is abusive and normalizes a toxic culture. Shaming an idea or behavior by pointing out its harmful effects on others is ethical. Shaming a person, their character, motivation, intent, intelligence, worth, demographic (sex, race, ethnicity, religion) or appearance, for example, is abusive, no matter who does it or however noble is the cause they believe they are serving. Conversely, shaming an idea or behavior is not an attack on a person. Many people have lost the ability to separate their ideas and behaviors from their ego identity, hear reasoned criticism of their ideas and behaviors as personal attacks, and therefore feel justified in defending with abuse. The same people who do not hear how they abuse others with personal attacks (labeling those who call out their abusive communication as "snowflakes") also hear personal attacks where there are none. Reason does not work with these people because they are operating from pre-cognitive hypervigilance and reactivity. The best solution is for others to normalize zero-tolerance for abusive communication by refusing to engage with it. Abuse is abuse, whether physical or verbal.
23
I see numerous comments of social media haters.
Do you know, it's actually possible to spend 7 months (the length of time I've been on social media) on Facebook and never encounter these things (in fact, I hear about them regularly in the NY Times but I've configured my FB feed to avoid all such things)?
I avoided social media for 10 years for the reasons many here give. I had to start learning about it because soon i'm going to do some online marketing that requires me to understand social media.
Quite to my surprise (my pre-2018 understanding, as a fellow baby boomer, was very much along the lines of most commenters) it was quite easy to set things up so as to limit my exposure to profound and inspiring scientific, philosophic and spiritual reflections.
4
The Harmless Torturer is a defective analogy.
Its victim cannot escape the pain from the actions of his\her torturer and has no responsibility for being in their power. The victim of a Twitter mob can escape by ignoring them or not even viewing their critical Tweets, and is responsible for their own suffering if he\she doesn't.
Going back one stage earlier in the story, we can probably assume the Torturer's victim could not help but be captured by him\her. But the Twitter mob's victim is an entirely willing one. Publishing tweets is a voluntary activity; it isn't essential or even advisable for any but a tiny minority of people who have made the choice to engage in a career that requires tweeting (and I'm skeptical that such a career exists).
In demolishing the analogy one reveals a truth about Twitter and other such open platforms: They are all defective in that they open participants up to vigorous and unfair criticism which may be hurtful but against which there is no moral objection other than the Golden Rule, which is observed mainly in the breach.
The reasonable conclusion is to avoid them altogether and stop whining if you don't.
9
@Max Davies Briefly, then: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." Precisely.
1
The sorites paradox originated in an ancient puzzle that appears to be generated by vague terms, viz., terms with unclear (“blurred” or “fuzzy”). My favourite is when does a collection of grains of sand become a pile.
It is unclear that the fallacious arguments here-in about how a few thousand actions - in their totality - makes one a candidate for 'torturer of the year' except in some vaguely socio-philosophical alternative universe.
I recall the comment of a respected Philosopher - who growing tired of 'runaway trolley and fat guy thought experiments' being used to justify philosophical arguments took to answering simply:
"I don't do trolley arguments"
2
Let go of your ego, and you'll find that most public expressions are really a form of signalling to others. Social media is designed to feed your ego, whether it is in case of mob justice or just feeling validated for your thoughts and opinions. When I started using the Internet, our social media was the newsgroup system USENET where I was enough of a troll that people would call me to deal with other trolls (like a hired gun, except I wasn't paid of course). I did this for many years. But then I had some interesting experiences involving my ego and after a lot of meditation I've come to understand the nature of these experiences.
But once you let go of your ego and decide that you'll only post on social media if you feel there is actually something valuable to contribute (i.e., you're not doing it for you, but you're doing it for the community, etc.) then almost always the reasons to say something disappears. Even this particular post is something that didn't need to be said but I feel my past experiences are instructive and hope someone gets something out of it, rather me posting it to benefit my ego (it has also cut down on my commenting in forums by several orders of magnitude).
I do indulge once in a while if I do something I'm proud of (like my astrophotography hobby, etc.) and sometimes my level of control over my ego isn't perfect but if I'm cognizant of it then almost always there's no reason to respond.
23
Humans didn't evolve to be hive minds like we've become. We're tribal, sure, and we form alliances but in no time in human history have we been tested like this. We're failing the test. We're losing compassion, rationality and common sense. I've been online since 1994 and for the first time in my life I believe it's time to get offline for good. The internet is not the open platform it used to be. Now it's very cultivated outrage machine. Clickbait headlines, but more importantly Twitter and Facebook manipulating how we communicate with each other - their algorithms driving the most controversial stuff to the top. Without that, these networks might have been okay but with that, they force us to take sides against each other. It's frightening to see how the outrage machine we've built needs fresh meat every day. It's no wonder horrific news passes like any other news. A man lighting himself on fire in Central Park to protest climate change is quickly forgotten when Kanye tweets something. I fear for our future.
42
@Sasha Stone But we did evolve to use shaming, alas. Simple hunter gathers do not require laws because they can use public shaming to control their wayward members. Nothing is as coercive as public opinion, even if the public is only 20 individuals.
But modern social media ramps that up to the level that now one would need to be a sociopath to remain unaffected if caught in the crosshairs.
1
Psychological torture is not harmless. Actually much of physical torture has to do with the psychological, the public shaming, the exposition to the public, the public allegation of crimes. This is what Middle Ages executions show. Psychological torture amplifies physical torture enormously, and can, actually be much more cruel, extensive and of a much longer duration. Habituation to the infliction of pain, when psychological, in particular, happens less readily.
The exact same pattern is reproduced now on the Internet. Victims can’t defend themselves. I know well the case of an individual with a Muslim background, who is highly critical of the ideology of Literal Islam. Guess what? He was accused publicly, all over the Internet to want to kill all Muslims. Yes, it’s diffamation, and redress can be found in courts. However, on the Internet, the sources of diffamation can move around quickly, redress is impossible.
It is certain that a new ethics adapted to the Internet needs to surface. It is also likely that new legislation may have to be drafted.
3
Social media such as twitter and facebook are anything but "social". And I was never interested in participating in it.
They provide the most extreme elements a platform to spew their conspiracy theories and insults against "them others", including the man in the Oval Office.
Twitter is the worst by far. It's CEO insists that Alex Jones, the man who - among numerous other conspiracy theories - says the mass murder of Sandy Hooks young children and teachers was staged, doesn't break their rules.
18
Sometimes social media make us blind, and cause some people to do the wrong choices.
Therefore, following social media blindly is the biggest lost.
I am an avid reader of the Times comment sections and occasional poster. I like to click "recommend" on those I agree with and eagerly wait to see how many "recommends" my posts get. I have often wished there was a "Don't recommend" or "Disagree" button to click. I now realize how hurtful that is. And I commend the Times for Not having that option and most posters for being respectful. Civil discourse and the exchange of ideas is essential and, when done respectfully, delightful. Let's all just try to be nice to each other.
13
Valuable critique of online shaming. Hopefully, it will encourage all sides to be more thoughtful before spreading flames.
3
Anonymity is critical....whether a mob in person or a mob online.
If you read the Milgram experiment, the experimenters commented that not one person leaving the fake torture experiment asked if the person they believed to have been tortured was OK.
The reality is thousands die anonymously and few care. ..fewer still take action.
1
Another commentator quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in defense of online shaming, the "ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas." True, but these types of vicious online flash mobs are not trading ideas, they encourage cruelty, hate, harm and ignorance.
Worse, it's often born solely from a need for attention, a need to be noticed, petty revenge, an obsession with going viral, getting likes, retweets, followers, clicks. Look at me! Me – more popular than you! Me – a virtual star! Everyone loves me!
It's the 21st's century medieval stocks, self-righteous, petty, cruel, careless 'entertainment'. Would be wonderful if a conversation, a discussion was born, but few, it seems, really want or know how to listen, less respond with anything but taunts and insults. It's easy, it requires no skill or knowledge, self-reflection or honesty, it's lazy, a few characters no more, it requires no thought. Worse, those who sit in high office support and double-down on this behavior by example as a norm, a means to riches and power through 'popularity' – no skills, knowledge or expertise necessary - just fingers and a phone and an unbridled lust for recognition.
9
'There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as moral indignation, which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue. Moral absolutism is a disease of the psycho-immune system, meaning those most certain about their ability to avoid fundamentalism are actually the most susceptible to it.' — Erich Fromm
15
Two points.
(a) New technology makes existing processes more efficient. Thus electronic aberrations typically have primitive antecedents.
The article focuses on digital bullying, on what in football is called "piling-on". It's not new. It's an ancient recreation.
Thus, the Colosseum. Or the cheering masses who attended public executions. Or the crowds of a bit more than a century ago, who were so sure of their virtue that they photographed the murder, mutilation, and burning of the Black people whom they lynched.
Twitter just enhances this curse of humanity; it didn't start it.
What to do? History shows some curbing of the bloodlust, but that running in packs is a tenacious sin and might well always be with us.
(b) The article fails to mention the most obvious recent example of a digital mob. This is the good cause turned witch-hunt, the #MeToo movement.
Born as a reasonable unmasking of outrageous rich predators, it became a scattershot flinging of charges, without accountability, which were then tried in Kangaroo Courts.
Before tinkering with the digital aspect of bullying, we should look at the etiology of the disease, at its ubiquity in history, and inquire how it was treated in the pre-Twitter age.
For witch hunts, let's start with our leading figures' demanding respect for the civil liberties of the accused. Their talking points: Constitution, due process, lawyer, court, confront witnesses, jury.
Hardcopy stuff, but let's start at the beginning.
15
@alyosha An excellent job of writing, if I may say so without fear of being "mobbed" (although on my list of fears, such would place very near to the bottom).
"Ubiquity in history" is an especially piquant phrase. As an amateur historian but very extensively read during my 77 years (or at least the last 65 or so years of it), that ubiquity is painfully evident.
As one particularly painful example, two queens - or at least two wives of a particular king - "lost their heads" due to being "mobbed" by salacious rumor and innuendo. And that was even before the invention of the telegraph!
"Let's start at the beginning," indeed. Well said, and very well written!
In their essay on the dangers of public shaming in the internet age, Bloom and Jordan question my motivations for saying that "Like most Americans, I spontaneously cheered when I saw the white nationalist Richard Spencer punched in the face during an interview." I wonder if they are aware of the irony of singling me out on the internet to warn about the dangers of singling people out on the internet?
22
@Bryan Van Norden
Hi Bryan -- Our remark was intended to be somewhat critical, but it wasn't meant to be harsh, and I realize now that it could have been phrased better. Sorry about that. (I bear the blame for that passage, not my co-author).
But there's no irony here. Our article was concerned with social mobbing. Disagreement and debate--which is what we did, and what you did yourself in your own Stone article, in much stronger terms--is a different thing and we have no problem with that, so long as it doesn't turn into an ugly pile-on.
Paul Bloom
1
@Paul Bloom
"Our article was concerned with social mobbing."
Then you should not be mobbing, but you are in your named example in this essay. There was no reason for the naming. Consider the consequences and please be sensitive.
While I can't speak to the author's motivations, I'm pretty sure that they did not intend to say that we cannot or should not talk or write about any individual's actions or statements ever lest we become "Harmless Torturers" ourselves. Moreover, there is clearly a difference in the context and tone in which the authors "single you out" than the public shaming that they are talking about in the article. In the first case, the authors are using your example (and others') to illustrate and support their thesis. In the latter, according to the authors so-called shamers (of which you may or may not be one -- I certainly don’t claim to know your motivations) seek to (a) "see immoral agents get their comeuppance" (b) "show off our goodness to others, to signal our virtue" and (c) feel "the thrill" by tapping into the "system of reward built into online shaming". I don't think any of those apply to the authors' use of your example in their article.
Rather than base your argument on a tenuous-at-best hypocrisy claim, I think you'd do better to claim that your referenced statement was acceptable because (a) Spencer is a public figure about whom standards should be different (as they are with defamation) and (b) by trading in hate speech, Spencer has himself not only invited, but made it necessary for decent people to shame his vile views as well as the hateful persona that he has created for himself.
The premise is so logically flawed that I am embarrassed the NYTimes published this mess. The idea that a "like" or comment on a remark or other seemingly negative response to someone's actions is equivalent to deliberately inflicting even a minor harm is nonsense. It is inaccurate in and of itself, and it grossly misunderstands the motivations of these labeled "Harmless Torturers." Most people when they "like" a critical comment on behavior/words/ideas are "voting" for the opinion, not seeking to inflict harm. It would be the same if they were having lunch with FB friends and one critiqued some person or group and the others chimed in with "Uh-huh. For sure. Yup." If the critiqued person were listening in on all such conversations (say Trump on Americans talking amongst themselves), it might hurt. But Trump doesn't have to do that. And no one has to scour social media to see how many people "like" critiques of their person. What a non-harmless analogy.
5
@Justice Now It isn't nonsense. It is intended to harm. When you favorite a tweet by someone that shames another you are inflicting some harm on another person. It's the kind of behavior we have evolved to hide for the sake of harmony. It does show our cruel side.
1
@Sasha Stone I agree: It isn't nonsense. If the target is a small child.
The rest of us should have learned about sticks and stones a long time ago, and should be capable of simply moving on rather than pretending to be somehow victimized by words.
I always thought it was "death by a thousand PAPER cuts." Certainly a single cut will be fatal if it is the right one. A single paper cut is, however, an annoyance; a distraction. A thousand of them may be something else with entirely different and potentially catastrophic consequences.
The essence, though, is that of the cumulative effects of an action or a series of actions. Another apt analogy may be the so-called Chinese water torture. Drip ... drip ... drip .... Drop by drop....
1
There's some irony to consider, but only for the sake of examing our own online choices each day. Take the “I Was the Mob Until the Mob Came for Me" article: In response to it, there are hundreds of comments, each one more degenerative than the previous. Really. I'm not kidding.
How we conduct and moderate the speech that's in direct relationship to each of our own respective published works matters. And each time it is a choice. Willful ignorance is a choice. The allowing of unfettered trolling is a choice.
Well we can't have it both ways. We can't ask for better behavior, and then stand by and watch as a cauldron of vitriol boils over.
Still, the fact is its the comments sections that drive more clicks. Nevertheless, this seems like a structural problem that is not insurmountable. Must we be so beholden?
An insightful article by two who study modern psychology.
Now, here is how a postmodern philosopher sees this topic.
This use of social media (I prefer the postmodern term digital association), comes infused with new power dynamics that never before were reachable. Professor Michel Foucault talked at length about this power found within groups and various other social constructs.
What we are seeing, through this concept of online shaming, is the first attempts to figure out how this new power works. And with all things new, it is not surprising to see that individuals use this new form of power to intimidate. Like little children at school, we are learning in the same manner as we do on the playground.
But that is right now. What of the future?
Take the 'me/too' movement and digital association. With this movement, the issues of power and legitimacy are being redefined. Can it go further?
Again Foucault is instrumental in understanding its remarkable potential.
In his research into how Truth was exposed and existed in ancient Greece, you can see further movements developing off the idea of 'me/too' that will mirror the lines of argument called 'parrhesiastes' that not only looked into what Truth is, but also who was capable of telling the Truth.
So for me, I see much more to be learned about this online world if it is studied through a postmodern lens, than one associated with modern psychology.
Take the
1
I’m sooo tired of the ‘lens’ metaphor. It’s all over the place and U can’t wait for the next figure of speech denoting point of view.
1
Parfit's experiment raises questions that I never before considered in regard to my own actions and behaviors that on their face have seemed irrelevant and harmless.
To further pursue Parfit's scenario, I now take a different view of those of us (myself included) who choose to "turn the dial" on our planet.
Isn't that what we're doing when we forgo recycling; or consume foods grown in chemically tainted soil; or eat protein from animals that have been raised in cruelty or whose numbers are dwindling to extinction; or buy goods from corporations that pollute air and water, or mistreat their workers; or use carbon-based instead of clean fuels?
Aren't we also casual "torturers" of the planet itself? Isn't each of us contributing to its deterioration, and the die-off of much of its life and habitat?
This piece has given me a fresh look at my own assumption that I'm "only" one person, therefore without effect. Each of us holds responsibility as a part of a 7 billion strong collective species.
I, for one, will never again be able to regard my own actions as irrelevant, even if I want to.
We are a Global Tribe.
SaneWorld.IO
32
@Pauline
This is a great remark: the accumulation of actions small, make a big and unwanted effect. We know this from complexity science, but your comment brings it home in a more real and down to earth way for those of us who are not going to understand the nuances of scientific ideas.
Thanks! I hope it is ok for me to quote you, though, wish I had the full name.
1
@Pauline
We know (we do know) what causes global warming. And we know that choosing to live in new construction in suburban housing (which is increasingly distant from the center) and choosing to drive alone to work in that center (instead of using transit or car pooling) is so normal as to be unremarkable.
But building suburban housing and commuting alone in one's car turn the dial.
And the inevitable result as people continue to do this (we can already see it beginning) will be Famine, Pestilence, and War.
Because moral responsibility depends on the actors' understanding of the consequences of their acts, living in suburban housing and commuting alone in one's car were blameless in 1958 because we didn't know.
But sixty years later, we do know and we must not comfort ourselves by confusing explanations of our behavior with excuses for our behavior.
If unchanged, our behavior will certainly have results that will put the cruelties of the 20th century totalitarians in the shade.
1
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me."
While social media may introduce a different kind of shaming, it doesn't have quite the same impact when people realize the meaninglessness of these particular mediums.
8
@ubique This is remarkably well said. It is fascinating to me how someone could care so much about the verbal slings and arrows coming from people they’ll never know, never meet, and never care about. There’s a narcissism of self importance, that somehow “likes” and “hearts” and “upvotes” have an actual impact on the reality of you as a person.
1
Yes, and: Democracy, toxic material dosage, resource consumption, all share aspects of these deaths by a thousand cuts. In our system, anonymous voting from a wide spectrum of personal motives, goes over the tipping point at 50 percent, when democracy can actually have awful consequences. Can you think of a recent example? Toxic materials are characterized by the dose at which 50 percent of the test animals die; safer dosages are extrapolated below that point. If I bump up my fossil fuel consumption by, say, getting on a plane, I think nothing of it, but in the aggregate, we have climate change. Eventually, extinction.
Social media, largely anonymous, have encouraged nasty behavior by millions who wouldn’t otherwise have dared, and the aggregate does have a so-far undefined lethal dose 50, no guaranteed safe dose, and in fact, no good models about the ethics or morality of these processes.
Perhaps, and I say this with considerable reservations, this is an actual useful topic for philosophic investigation. Grant application, anyone?
5
@Marat In 1784
"If I bump up my fossil fuel consumption by, say, getting on a plane, I think nothing of it, but in the aggregate, we have climate change. Eventually, extinction."
*Extinction* is awfully abstract. Even if the result is far less than extinction--say, the elimination of 60% of the world's people through famine and disease--that is a monstrous amount of suffering to impose on other people so that you can ride on a airplane at will. We don't need to abolish airplanes; we just need to make judicious, appropriate use of them, and the extent of that use will depend on the facts, not what we would like the facts to be.
NYT Comments are the most "social media" I expose myself to. A child of the fifties and sixties, the risks involved in conducting my life in a public venue always seemed more real than the benefits, which I still don't understand.
It seems that participants draw some inner gratification from the weightless indicators of approval of strangers--I'll admit to being pleased if my comment draws some "recommendations." But throwing anonymous verbal grenades crosses some inner red line that I guess was defined for me in the years after WWII, and the McCarthy hearings and the vicious, arbitrary blacklists that persisted for years afterward.
The definition of a "gentleperson" as one who behaves with dignity, compassion and restraint when noone can see it has lost all its public value.
53
@JohnH
"..one who behaves with dignity, compassion and restraint when noone can see it has lost all its public value." Yes....we saw in the last election that "when they go low we go high" no longer works
1
Facebook, Twitter and similar sites should be called "anti-social media". They enable and encourage anti-social behavior. They create "bubble" or "echo chamber" communities where dissenting ideas are discouraged.
In some ways this is not new - in any social group certain ideas are not tolerated. Anti-social media has metastasized into a monster.
19
@Brad
Even if FB, and Twitter went away tomorrow, we'd have the problem. HuffPo people hanging out there. Fox News folks over there. Separate with no overlap and completely distorted (intentionally, by their echo chamber overlords) views of "the others".
I am on a summer break from social media, spending time to consider what it is I do or do not get out of it. This piece speaks clearly to me and adds to the growing list of reasons to not resume participating. Thank you.
17
The steady march of science and technology does not imply growing moral or intellectual complexity in the lives of most people. Quite the opposite.
Technology is both a tool for helping humans... and allowing humans to destroying themselves. This is the paradox of our times which we're compelled to face.
27
Live your life honorably, and resist the urge to participate in online shaming, lest you be the one shamed in return over matters which you cannot control. And instead of trying to rack up the most friends and followers you can, look for quality over quantity. I know there are those whose whole livelihoods are built on attracting attention, but attracting too much may come to harm as well as help you.
32
Every day brings more reasons to avoid social media completely. I have never participated, and dozens of reasons (plus one more today in this article) why I am sure engaging in social media would be a serious waste of time and energy.
64
@JamesBut you're doing it now, my friend!
1
@James Aren't you "engaging in social media" by posting your comment here?
@James so what? Some people don't use cell phones either, or electricity, or cars, or "fill in blank here".
Not participating in social media is your own personal choice, like most other things in life.
It doesn't make you either superior or inferior to other people, it just your choice.
The signaling or display value of our actions seems to be magnified by the current media landscape. This applies well beyond internet shaming. Voting, for example, is often assumed to be a mode of personal expression instead of an action with consequences. Sitting it out or voting for an unelectable third party candidate expresses preference but, practically speaking, can often contribute to negative consequences. Imagine a world where Al Gore had been elected. Feelings seem to be the highest reality. Trump and anti trump (those who didn’t vote for Clinton) voters both may have made highly irrational choices, and many probably still “feel good” about it. I’d argue that even if these displays are only made to self they are still highly valued and often not questioned. But no matter how validating it may have been to march in DC with a pink hat, I’d have preferred not to—because there was a competent, not perfect, woman in the White House.
23
I cured myself of "third party" voting in 1980, when I cast my ballot for John Anderson. At the time, I faulted President Jimmy Carter on leadership, not policy, grounds.
I then spent that evening at an "election results" party praying that Ronald Reagan would get over 50% of the vote. (He did, barely.) I could then console myself that my errant vote was not decisive.
Never again.
27
@maddenwg I learned my lesson voting for John Anderson as well, and we'll tell our kids and FB friends about that ad nauseum, but will they listen? (They didn't listen in 2016.) It's just too self-affirming to link one's identity with the passionate, rebellious candidate (not that Anderson was either ...)
@TvdV
Al Gore would have been elected if not for the shenanigans of the GOP. As would have Hillary Clinton. We're up against something so big we cannot see it.
3
The minor premise of this article's argument is an analogy between torture and what the author calls "public shaming" on social media.
This is a weak analogy and forms the basis for a specious argument.
Torture is one of the most depraved and universally condemned of all forms of human conduct. Social media criticism, not so much.
The fact that internet social media readers are also participating actively in a public conversation is a good thing. And the fact that netizens have ethical and moral values and promote them in a public forum where others can comment is a good thing too.
Flame wars and shaming are homeostatic mechanisms of the Net since the days of Usenet.
As former Internet Activities Board Chair David Clark famously said:
"We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code."
Expressing values through writing, not torture, is how the ethics and morality of the internet is formulated and applied.
This author's over-the-top analogy is itself a prime example of online shaming.
What the author here decries is the modern equivalent of the internet user declaiming from atop a soap box in the public square.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote so eloquently in his dissent in Abrams v US:
"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas."
4
@Henry Edward Hardy, I believe the authors hoped to help us realize that there are consequences to our actions when considered in the aggregate that we either might not be aware of, or, worse, allow our darker sides to take glee in. Your example of the soapbox speaker in the square is an interesting one. Most of these are a little deranged, and the vast majority of people roll their eyes and pass by, not wanting to participate in such foolishness. Those who do, clapping or cat-calling, are usually not considered the heroes of democracy as you seem to.
3
@Henry Edward Hardy Sorry, it isn't so over the top when people are losing their jobs, have to move, or live scared to death that the rape they have been threatened with might come true.
It is a different form of torture, yes, but psychological torture exists and can do great harm.
17
Your comment is based on the premise that internet shaming or mobbing are harmless, but considerable evidence suggests otherwise. In many cases people lose their jobs, are shunned by their friends or family, suffer severe mental trauma, and in some cases are driven to suicide by online shaming, etc.
1
I don't see the point of social media and have never participated in it; nor will I.
I have better things to do.
56
@Vesuviano, These comments are also a form of social media, so, yes, you actually have participated in it...
2
@Vesuviano
By posting an online comment to the New York Times you are, whether you realize it or not, participating in social media right now.
3
@Vesuviano
Poe's law, friend... Or is there really cognitive dissonance at work here? - You recognize you posted your comment on a social media application, right?...
2