Anonymity on the Web

Occasionally we have members who use or reveal their real name while complaining that others here are being less than forthright by being anonymous. An article in today's Times describes some real life examples of the downside of using your real identity on the web: --Percy

This whole idea of public shaming, revitalized since days of yore, is in my opinion totally unfair. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?How dare some wag on twitter hijack one of our tweets and get us fired for some random insensitive comment we might have made?

Maybe because you made some random insensitive comment?

It's still there. But so is the fact that people may not like the speech and hate you for speaking it. Days of yore? You must mean yesterday, when neighborhood gossip groups were still shunning the folks who have the audacity to order something from Amazon and have it delivered in an unmarked box.

The public shaming is bad, yes. But when did freedom of speech evolve to mean that there are no consequences for what you say? What does hijack mean in this circumstance? It seems to mean taking a public tweet and distributing it to some more of the public. If you only want your friends to read something, aren't there much better ways to accomplish that than tweeting?

Since when does the public have a right to judge my character through interpretation of something I said to the extent of forcing my employer to get rid of me? My point is that these people are taking on the role of judge and jury over others whom they have never even met!Granted one should never say something publicly that they would regret anyone hearing.Still...I think it is not the public's business to be judge and jury concerning people who never get a fair hearing.

Did you say "Granted one should never say something publicly that they would regret anyone hearing. "?

Yes.

No I meant this:

quote:

---

On July 15, 1742, a woman named Abigail Gilpin, her husband at sea, had been found naked in bed with one John Russell. They were both to be whipped at the public whipping post 20 stripes each. Abigail was appealing the ruling, but it wasn’t the whipping itself she wished to avoid. She was begging the judge to let her be whipped early, before the town awoke. If your honor pleases, she wrote, take some pity on me for my dear children who cannot help their unfortunate mother’s failings.

​

The movement against public shaming had gained momentum in 1787, when Benjamin Rush, a physician in Philadelphia and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote a paper calling for its demise the stocks, the pillory, the whipping post, the lot. Ignominy is universally acknowledged to be a worse punishment than death, he wrote. It would seem strange that ignominy should ever have been adopted as a milder punishment than death, did we not know that the human mind seldom arrives at truth upon any subject till it has first reached the extremity of error.

​

The pillory and whippings were abolished at the federal level in 1839, although Delaware kept the pillory until 1905 and whippings until 1972. An 1867 editorial in The Times excoriated the state for its obstinacy. If [the convicted person] had previously existing in his bosom a spark of self-respect this exposure to public shame utterly extinguishes it. . . . The boy of 18 who is whipped at New Castle for larceny is in nine cases out of 10 ruined. With his self-respect destroyed and the taunt and sneer of public disgrace branded upon his forehead, he feels himself lost and abandoned by his fellows.

​

At the archives, I found no evidence that punitive shaming fell out of fashion as a result of newfound anonymity. But I did find plenty of people from centuries past bemoaning the outsize cruelty of the practice, warning that well-meaning people, in a crowd, often take punishment too far.

---

My point is that the whole idea of public shame is a biased and unfair campaign against any given individual who has heretofore been found innocent.

None of that applies, Phat. The woman posted a public message. She got a public reaction.If she didn't want the public involved in her life, then she shouldn't have brought them into it in the first place.ABE: YMEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

There's a difference between:

• doing something in private and then being drug out into public and being shamed
• doing something in public and being shamed

I don't disagree that the public was being a bunch of twats by responding as they did.But that public, she a fickle bitch.You best be careful out there.

A good rule of thumb for the internet is not to put anything in print that you do not want to see on the front page of your local paper or your bosses desk.Another good rule of thumb is to be overly cautious about jokes, especially sarcasm -- there are many Sheldon Coopers out there who will take what you write at face value ... even if you think you are just trading sarcastic comments with friends. It's like Big Bang theory where they hold up signs "Sarcasm, Sheldon" -- I use /sarcasm on facebook and here.Edited by RAZD, :

Two concepts of "freedom of speech".The official First Amendment kind: It is still alive and well. The government did not throw her in jail. No problem.The Pop Culture version: It is alive and well, too. Freedom of speech means being able say what you want. That also goes for those who will take your drivelings, publicize them, sneer at them and publicly beat you over the head with them. That is freedom of speech as well. This pop version of free speech does not protect anyone from the public backlash when you say something stupid. The public backlash is also freedom of speech.The problem here is not the shaming, which may be well deserved, but is the sheer joy some scum have in a constant campaign of threat and intimidation to destroy the person.My opinion, when the destruction campaigns start the scumbags involved need to be publicly chastised, labeled as bullies, humiliated and put on the shame block themselves.

Here's a response to that article: I Don't Feel Sorry for Stupid White People on the Internet

quote:

---

The New York Times wants us to feel sorry for the white people who are held accountable for the dumb shit they say on the internet. Of course this article wouldn't be complete without an privileged blonde lady in tears.

​

...

​

Anyone who has had a middle school health class damn well knows that any race can get AIDS so no one literally believed that Justine thought that. She may have been trying to poke fun at the white privilege bubble, sure I guess, but a dismissive stupid comment, that has to be fewer than 140 characters, doesn't leave any room for context or nuance. Furthermore, the internet didn't know Justine personally. Social media and Fox news comments sections are rife with racists who have no qualms making a joke like that so taking what she said at face value is the only thing left to do.

---

Really? Taking it at face value is really the only thing left to do?How retarded is that?

quote:

---

No, I don't feel sorry for the stupid white people who say stupid things on social media. They don't deserve death threats or pitchforks on the front lawn, but the professional consequences and emotional responses may be the only damn things that finally give these people the one thing they don't have: empathy.

---

Oh wow, what a stupid bitch.People who make tasteless jokes don't have empathy!?Really!? Judge much?God I hate these people.