Group items tagged

"I find myself in an educational environment in which outrage, censoring and public shaming has begun to replace critique, disagreement and debate. Public shaming always has a purpose, whether it comes from the left or right, from progressives or conservatives, activists or armchair philosophers. It may be an effective way to close down discussion, or deter others from taking certain unwanted political positions. It may also be a way to circumvent the status quo in the academy and challenge the standards of academic publishing and career advancement. But the problematic effects of public shaming are many - among them, silencing "allies," blaming individuals rather than examining social context, fostering intolerance and divisiveness, creating a "with-us-or-against-us" ethos, and reducing identity politics to a version of "oppression Olympics." "

while American college campuses were "awash in moral relativism" as late as the 1980s, a "shame culture" has now taken its place. The subjective morality of yesterday has been replaced by an ethical code that, if violated, results in unmerciful moral crusades on social media. A culture of shame cannot be a culture of total relativism. One must have some moral criteria for which to decide if someone is worth shaming. "Some sort of moral system is coming into place," Brooks says. "Some new criteria now exist, which people use to define correct and incorrect action." This system is not a reversion to the values that conservatives may wish for. America's new moral code is much different than it was prior to the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 70s. Instead of being centered on gender roles, family values, respect for institutions and religious piety, it orbits around values like tolerance and inclusion. (This new code has created a paradoxical moment in which all is tolerated except the intolerant and all included except the exclusive.)

"Like all forms of public shaming, being accused of cultural appropriation is painful and embarrassing - and when you belong to the culture you're being accused of stealing, the shame becomes something much deeper. At its worst, such policing is just another way of enforcing the authenticity trap. It's tedious and exhausting, and those who challenge your identity are rarely looking for an answer so much as confirmation that they've guessed correctly. As a kid, my background felt like something that made me unique. As an adult, I've realized it's just something that makes me different. In Thandie Newton's 2011 TED Talk on embracing otherness, the biracial actress says that we are all born believing in a universal "sameness," but that this idea is quickly taken from us as the world starts to label us based on our differences."

"Elliott's chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists. He and Guthrie, for instance, initially fell out over his refusal to endorse her plan to "sic the Internet" upon a young man in Northern Ontario who had invented a violent video game, where users could punch an image of a feminist video blogger named Anita Sarkeesian until the screen turned red. Guthrie Tweeted at the time that she wanted the inventor's "hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience" and Tweeted to prospective employers to warn them off the young man and even sent the local newspaper in his town a link to the story about the game. Elliott disagreed with the tactic and Tweeted he thought the shaming "was every bit as vicious as the face-punch game". Until then, the two were collegial online, with Elliott offering to produce a free poster for Guthrie's witopoli (Women in Toronto Politics) group. As serious as the ramifications of a conviction could be for Elliott, so could they be dire for free speech online, Murphy suggested in his final arguments. He said the idea that all it takes to end up charged with criminal harassment is vigorous participation in online debate with those who will not brook dissent "will have a chilling effect on people's ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter". In fact, Murphy said that contrary to what Guthrie and Reilly testified to at trial, they weren't afraid of his client - as suggested by both their spirited demeanour in the witness box and their deliberate online campaign to call Elliott out as a troll. TwitterA screenshot of Gregory Elliott's Twitter page. Rather, Murphy said, they hated Elliott and were determined to silence him - not just by "blocking" his Tweets to them, but by demanding he cease even referring to them even in making comment about heated political issues. To all this, Guthrie pointed out once in cross-examination t

Madhouse, a nationwide chain of discount men's clothing stores, was branded "shameful" and "outrageous" by hundreds of Twitter users yesterday, because of the label's washing instructions to 'Give it to your woman'. The beige pair of chinos in question were purchased in London at Madhouse's flagship Oxford Street store last month. The incident shows the power of Twitter to embarrass companies which make such gaffes. Last year, Topman was forced to apologise and remove a range of t-shirts from shelves after Twitter users said they were sexist. One t-shirt said: "Nice new girlfriend - what breed is she?" Vanessa Truskey, a publicity executive, commenting on the Madhouse trouser label, tweeted: "Lately I can't tell which decade I'm living in. What brand are those trousers?! I can only assume that's a joke."

Being unable to go comfortably topless in public may not seem important, Demone says, but, speaking to the Guardian, she says: "It's a clear example of the sexism that comes with living in a female body. "So at what point in my breast development do I need to start covering my nipples? I already feel shameful about them being visible, but at what point does society say it's unacceptable for them to be out?"

"The real debate here is not about the principle of free speech, but the much grayer question of how we draw its boundaries. What kinds of speech should be morally out of bounds? What sorts of speakers should be excluded from major platforms? When can giving a platform to one kind of person actually make it harder for other people to speak their minds freely? And what kinds of social sanctions, like public shaming or firing, are justified responses to violations of these social norms? Once we see that these are the issues we're actually discussing, it becomes clear that "cancel culture" is not the existential threat to free expression it's made out to be. "

The response to Hunt is way more archaic than what Hunt said. Sure, his views might be a bit pre-women's lib, pre-1960s. But the tormenting and sacking of people for what they think and say is pre-modern. It's positively Inquisitorial. The irony is too much to handle: Hunt is railed against for expressing an old-fashioned view, yet the railers against him do something infinitely more old-fashioned: they expel from public life someone they judge to have committed heresy. Kick him out. Strip him of his titles. Mock his misfortune. "Savour the moment." How awfully ironic that the Royal Society, which played a key role in propelling Britain from medievalism to modernity, is now being asked to behave in a medieval fashion and send into the academic wilderness a heretic among its number