World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Social networks, internet, talk-backs and all opened new social phenomena, one of which is - shaming.. Questionable practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_... that has its pros and cons.
Taking into account the possibility of resonance, spread and buzz, it's not negligible anymore. It has different forms: can be people filming someone committing traffic offences and publicizing the film on the net, customers complaining about some maltreatment of their case by some manufacturers/retailers or spreading private photos on the web.
Sometimes the reaction of the 'victim' or 'target' is extreme, tragic even. Some other times these promote some just cause.
What do you think? What's your attitude?

Interesting question - I personally don't love the 'shaming' culture, as essentially, the person in question might have simply acted without thinking - or been having a spectacularly bad day!

However, it does depend on the nature of the act. For example, I watched a video the other day of a man physically abusing someone on train in a racist attack. By having these types of videos 'going viral' it might deter others from acting in a similar way? Or perhaps not? Maybe it would have the reverse effect?

I suppose the act of videoing itself could be useful for investigative purposes - e.g. showing the police if it's a criminal act? Hmm... you've got me thinking now!

Lucy wrote: "it might deter others from acting in a similar way? Or perhaps not? Maybe it would have the reverse effect?.."

Sure, the purpose is usually to influence through exposure.. The impact may differ...

Lucy wrote: "I suppose the act of videoing itself could be useful for investigative purposes - e.g. showing the police if it's a criminal act? Hmm... you've got me thinking now! "

exactly!

the fact that we always carry a mobile phone video capability is very powerful.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/black-v...

What do you think of 'shaming'?

In the greater scheme of things, I am against it. Providing evidence to the police is not the same thing. My reason is that there are already raft of net bullies, and "shameful" posts don't have to be true, or they can be greatly misconstrued. If every man and his dog starts doing this, life for some would be horrible, while they would be basically innocent of anything wrong. There is authenticity behind this for too activity. The courts shaming someone would be an entirely different matter.

Ian wrote: "In the greater scheme of things, I am against it. Providing evidence to the police is not the same thing. My reason is that there are already raft of net bullies, and "shameful" posts don't have to..."

When I look at the opposite examples, of a big bank not endorsing a haircut write-off deal with a billionaire in trouble, because of the public outcry and boycott on the one hand, and a suicide of an official because someone ruined his reputation on social networks, on the other hand, I can see how powerful a tool it can be, however maybe more harmful than helpful...

When I think of shaming someone, it's not the same as exposing someone's shameful acts, which is legitimate. On the other hand, if you shame someone because of their physical appearance, then shame on you.

Scout wrote: "When I think of shaming someone, it's not the same as exposing someone's shameful acts, which is legitimate. On the other hand, if you shame someone because of their physical appearance, then shame..."

I guess both happen under the same brand. How about placing on the web captured traffic rules violations? My impression - a lot of bikers hang out these days on the roads with cameras on their helmet

Not the same as shaming, if the law is involved. Shaming is more personal.

Iridescent wrote: "The community then 'shames' the individual..."

I hear that in Chinese culture 'losing face' is probably the worst thing that can befall them...

Honour and Shame are co-existent. Can't have one without the capacity for the other.

Honour and Shame require a capacity to self-reflect, and internalise the experience.

People with low capacity to self-reflect (psychopaths) have low capacity to experience honour and shame, and consequently are not motivated by honour/shame motivational frameworks.

Compare pack animals (Wolves/Dogs) with flock animals (Sheep) and you will see this in operation. Wolves & Dogs are very attuned to honour and shame - ever seen a dog feeling shameful - it's obvious when it happens.

Sheep and other flock animals are 'other reflective,' always watching what the other members of the flock are doing to make sure they don't miss out on tasty food or avoiding a threat, and they have no honour or shame.

Human beings are far more wired to operate in packs, with pack mentalities, hierarchies, alphas, and will sacrifice for the pack, and if necessary give their lives for the pack, driven by a host of motivations (including honour/shame) that occur due to capacity to self-reflect.

In the context of this question, shaming is a viable tactic to use where appropriate.

Graeme wrote: "Honour and Shame are co-existent. Can't have one without the capacity for the other.

Honour and Shame require a capacity to self-reflect, and internalise the experience.

People with low capacity ..."

Interesting comparative analysis

Since when has anyone here objected to expanding? No shame will fall on you.

-:)

Unfortunately, teenagers and people distant from publicity are the most susceptible to shaming. With class whatsapp groups in school, facebook and other socializing venues reckless publicizing of something intimate relating to another kid, for example, often results in really tragic consequences.
On the other hand, those who we would want to be shame- sensitive, like politicians, CEOs and other influencers, develop such a thick skin that feeling ashamed drops from their consciousness or vocabulary ..