The Shame Game

[silentsophia]

Honestly, the biggest issue with harem building/multi IC partner TSers I have is the inevitable drama fall out or that they hole up, and god help you if you aren't one of their TS partners because you aren't getting any plot clues. And staff loves to tell you, OH GO IC AND GET THEM FROM SO AND SO. WELL, THEY'RE AVOIDING ME. So that comes to a dead end.

Or the whole 'I'm gonna ignore anyone I can't bang/attempt to destroy competition' business. That shit's obnoxious.

[Rainbow Unicorn]

This has been a really interesting discussion to read.

[Ganymede]

@Lithium said in The Shame Game:

It's a simple matter of perception.

You know, we've clashed civilly on a couple of topics in the past. I am compelled to engage here because I hear this all the time, and I cannot agree with it. Weighing an opinion based on whether you like a person is probably the main reason why Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, and why any number of previous, disastrous conservative candidates somehow became the cream of the crop.

You don't have to agree with a book. If your disagreement is not based on something other than "I don't like the person," then your disagreement is founded upon an ad hominem attack, which is fallacious and ignorant. If you don't agree with a book because it runs contrary to your personal experience on the same topic, that is at least based upon personal perception and experience.

And you, of course, have plenty of personal experience. Your disagreement with Brene Brown or anyone else is likely based on something more than "I don't like this motherfucker." I find it very, very difficult to believe that you would ever judge a person's belief based solely on whether you like or dislike the person.

But if you do -- IF -- I will seriously wonder what happened.

Politics shows us what crazy things people put weight on because people are generally willfully ignorant as to the complexities of politics. If they would spend a few minutes every day thinking about the news -- not the editorials -- we would all have a better political system.

[Lithium]

@Ganymede This is a fallacy.

Nobody lives in an emotional vacuum. Not even people who pretend to be robots.

Every single interaction we have with other human beings is colored by our perception of it and we make snap judgements.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it /is/.

It's one of the dark sides of human nature and it applies to how we value opinions as much as anything else.

The simple fact that someone like Trump seems to have won the Republican nomination is part of the support for what I said.

People reacted emotionally to what he said and therefor his opinion mattered more than the other candidates so they voted for him.

For whatever reason, their perception of him, was better than the other possible candidates.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Politics thread, just using it support my opinion on opinions.

We can /try/ to not weigh opinions based on our feelings but that's a lot harder than it seems, and I'm willing to say that I believe most people can't do it. Not really. See Trump.

[Ganymede]

@Lithium

No, it's not.

I never said anything about absolute objectivity. I voiced my opinion (ha ha ha) that some opinions are worth more than others.

You said otherwise. And I think that's wrong.

Sure, we have emotional reactions to people. Those with a modicum of critical thought suppress that emotional reaction and can make a judgment contrary to that initial reaction.

If we didn't, we wouldn't have a viable justice system. Judges would simply make judgments based on what they feel: not according to law or facts, but emotions.

You say it's hard. I disagree. And I disagree with people who make snap judgments without consideration of available information.

And, yes, that's why we have Trump. Because many people are making judgments based solely on emotions. And their opinions are ignorant and therefore worthless.

[Pandora]

I've never been into outer space, but based on things I've read, shadows and horizons I've observed, and spoken testimony of specific scientific figures, it is my opinion that the Earth is round.

If a five year old tells me it is their personal opinion, based on nothing more than liking pizza and birthday cakes, that the world is flat - I'm going to have to respectfully decline to give their argument equal weight to someone that's read a book, any book.

TLDR; Everyone's right to have an opinion is equal. (Unless you think Beyonce didn't have one of the greatest albums of all time.) All opinions are not equally valid.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Pandora Check your intellectual privilege. The flat earth movement is gaining supporters all over the globe.

[WTFE]

Right. It doubled last week alone! (That's when my wife and I joined.)

[Duntada]

@Cupcake

Sorry I'm jumping back to the first post to answer the question, apologies if we've moved on.

Personally the way I looked at it, most of the things that go on in MU environments that are harmful can only happen in a vacuum. They can only be done so long as the majority of people involved remain ignorant of it.

The purpose of this isn't shaming people to change their behaviors. It's to have a third party that will look at all sides of the argument going on with an equal amount of derision.

I have no illusions that you guys like EITHER side of an argument I am apart of, I'm pretty sure you hate all of us, which means that your replies are more likely to be honest. If I am being a shitbag, you will tell me. I will take the realization that I'm the one that fucked up and will use that going forward.

If the other person is being a shitbag, then they have to face it, and move on from there.

What's most important is that other people who are in the periphery who would have known nothing until either of us being dicks screwed them over, now get to see exactly what kind of dicks they are dealing with and can now prepare appropriately, instead of everyone sitting in their own echo chambers hearing about how their terrible ideas are perfectly right and everyone else is a meany for calling them out on their mistakes.

[Coin]

@Lithium: Everyone's opinions are equally valid!
@Ganymede: No, some people's opinions are better informed and more valid than others!
@Lithium: No! You're wrong and I'm right!

I see a paradox! (Is that a paradox? Well. Contradiction, anyway.)

---

P.S. If you guys haven't seen this (re: Flat Earth Movement) you really fucking need to, right now.

[Vorpal]

@Lithium said in The Shame Game:

@Ganymede This is a fallacy.

We can /try/ to not weigh opinions based on our feelings but that's a lot harder than it seems, and I'm willing to say that I believe most people can't do it. Not really. See Trump.

I agree with @Ganymede in this- I think you are wrong, to an extent. Rational thought and objectivity aren't automatic, they are volitional. Everybody can, in fact, do it. Most choose not to, mostly out of habit. Being rational is not something that comes automatically, it's something that has to be forced and practiced on habit consciously - excellence is not an act, but a habit.

The problem, of course, is that culturally people have come to associate rational thought with the cold Straw Vulcan and therefore not fun/a stodge/a stick in (choose your spot) and completely incompatible with having normal emotions.

The practice of rational thought isn't 'sexy' in our culture, and most people think it doesn't really apply to them. Scientists, engineers, doctors have to think rationally -we think- but the rest of us don't have to. That is usually what I encounter when I talk this over with people. But the state of the culture concerning rational thought as a practiced habit is so schizophrenic that it's a norm and not an exception for those aforementioned 'rational' professional to be perfectly rational in their professions, but completely fail to apply that level of introspection to their own private lives and therefore are holy messes at home.

And then you have careers such as mine in opera, where a large number of its practitioners are an irrational mess on and off the clock...

[Kestrel]

Throwing my two cents in, because why not? I think @Ganymede and @Lithium are both wrong.

Striving to think rationally is admirable for all the reasons discussed above. And it is, on the whole, better than thinking emotionally, especially when people put their hearts on a pedestal as @Vorpal describes: the culture that dictates logic is not sexy.

But one should also, at the same time, recognise the fact of personal biases and that no one is immune to them. Rational purity in humans does not exist. If it did, judges — to reference the example @Ganymede gave — would not be susceptible to the halo effect, would not so often fail to issue rape convictions, and would not sentence people of colour more harshly and more frequently. I would argue that, quite often, judges do simply make judgements based on what they feel, as all of us do; they just back it up with a lot more rationalisation further down the line.

This is why critical thinkers trust in peer-reviewed empirical data and meta-analyses, not personal anecdotes. One person's experience and judgement, no matter how rationally they think they've processed it, is never sufficient.

@Lithium is right to recognise that no one is rational. @Ganymede is right to recognise they should be. This is basically a debate between rational idealism and empathetic realism. Here's to the fence. You're both right, and you're both wrong.

Also, I know it's not cool to reference books and stuff, but you guys should read Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. He won a Nobel prize and stuff, so must be somewhat important. Or watch this fun animated video.

[Kanye Qwest]

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

Striving to think rationally is admirable for all the reasons discussed above. And it is, on the whole, better than thinking emotionally

lol what
People who aren't caught up in bullshit are aware that both logic and emotion are pretty important in dealing with life. One without the other is bad, no matter which way you skew.

[Kestrel]

@Kanye-Qwest said in The Shame Game:

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

Striving to think rationally is admirable for all the reasons discussed above. And it is, on the whole, better than thinking emotionally

lol what
People who aren't caught up in bullshit are aware that both logic and emotion are pretty important in dealing with life. One without the other is bad, no matter which way you skew.

Yeah, that was bad phrasing on my part; I'll stand corrected on this point.

I was primarily referring to personal bias, but I suppose I should say that thinking rationally is better than thinking emotionally circumstantially, when it comes to decision-making for matters that aren't personal or ethics-related. (Although, here, have more books! Morality should be approached scientifically, too.)

I don't advocate being a robot when making decisions pertaining to your career or your relationships. But it is quite useless to be emotionally invested in internet discussions with people you don't know, discussing/judging/upvoting/shaming matters of little consequence.

[Vorpal]

@Kanye-Qwest said in The Shame Game:

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

Striving to think rationally is admirable for all the reasons discussed above. And it is, on the whole, better than thinking emotionally

lol what
People who aren't caught up in bullshit are aware that both logic and emotion are pretty important in dealing with life. One without the other is bad, no matter which way you skew.

It's a variation of the Straw Vulcan, honestly. Emotions aren't bad. However, they aren't tools of congition, they are tools of reaction. Emotions only tell you how you feel about something, not necessarily that it is good or bad. That's where reason comes in- ideally, through introspection, you should take stock of your emotions and ask yourself "What am I feeling, and why?" Emotions are kind of the system warning flags that tells you something is going on- but ideally it's up to the actual diagnostic tool (your rational mind) to do the work of digging and trying to find whether it's really a good thing or a bad thing... or calling for help.

Sometimes your emotions are spot on and your rational side can corroborate that, such as "Whoa, that's right, that guy is a massive douche and he's taking advantage of me." Other times, depending on what you have internalized, your emotions are totally out of whack with reality, which is why that introspection is very, very important- because operating on subconsciously-assimilated bad premises can really fuck you up. Sometimes people stay in abusive or toxic relationships because of how they feel about themselves- even when everything in their rational minds tells them they should be booking it out of there, the adage of "follow your heart, not your mind" comes up time and time again.

Usually when your heart and your mind are in conflict, your mind's the one to trust- emotions are reactive, not cognitive. That being said, it's not easy, not by a long shot, and it requires a lot of honesty and it isn't infallible.

Still, it's a pretty good toolset. Emotions and Reason aren't opposites, they're meant to work together.

[Thenomain]

@Vorpal

And by "meant to" I hope you also mean "like we have a choice". Law, for example, is an attempt to codify culture. Each law comes from an opinion, and each culture will value one opinion over another. That changes, and everyone who posts here can see it changing every day as we test and challenge and reason and find emotional value with those opinions.

Opinions and shaming are related but not the same topic, unless your opinion is "is this action shaming?" I feel that the answer comes in two steps. First, of course, that the person feels shamed. I admit that when I get a downvote my first thought is to wonder what I did wrong. I feel I have been shamed for having nothing more than an opinion. You can see my frustration with this by asking for a discussion, to bring the shame into the realm of reason.

Oh, yes, reason and logic aren't the same thing. Logic is mathematical. Reason is not. Moving on.

The second is what society thinks. Words here chosen carefully because yes, society is often wrong. If we can see this and accept this, then we can say that opinions can be wrong. Unfortunately, and here's where trying to have a rational discussion about this can fall apart, right and wrong for opinions is contextual.

Guy to some other guy's wife while they are both standing there: You look gorgeous tonight.

Guy to some other guy while he and his wife are both standing there: Your wife looks gorgeous tonight.

Same opinion. One of them in modern context has an undertone of ownership rights between husband and wife. If the woman chose to be offended, in modern day America it would be modestly accepted. If you accept that all people are equal, she'd be right to call the expression of the latter opinion "wrong".

The statement that all opinions carry equal strength is logically fallacious.

---

So what about shaming? To me, shaming is when someone tries to attack you verbally or emotionally with the express purpose to belittle or demean.

So what about our beloved downvote? Well sure, if you want to take it as being shamed then I won't argue with that. The problem, tho, is that you don't know. I don't know. It has nothing to do with seeing who's voting, it has to do with there not being enough information.

In spite of my emotions, I don't feel there's enough reason to feel shamed over it. What we do with our emotions are up to us. There are so, so many other emotional attacks in this hobby that need addressed that I'm hoping the time I'm taking here to explain why I and others should merely eye-roll at the downvote helps someone else focus on bigger things.

Like VASpider or MGMT, both epic shamers.

Wait, Theno, aren't you shaming them? I am. Your point being that shaming can't be true? Like any form of violence, as a tool it can answer problems. I don't think many people know that, tho, and if we start telling shamers of the more poisonous kind to go to hell, then we can get to the point where we have better societal rules and therefore can break them more reasonably.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Pandora said in The Shame Game:
You forgot the best evidence that the world is round; the one the ancient Greeks used, math. You can measure the angle we can view the sun at different places to be different at the same time, and the difference could not be accounted for solely by the variance of the sun's position.
While that does not prove the Earth is round it does prove the surface is curved and not flat.

[Cheesegrater]

@ThatGuyThere said in The Shame Game:

You can measure the angle we can view the sun at different places to be different at the same time, and the difference could not be accounted for solely by the variance of the sun's position.

A flat earther would point out that Eratosthenes' math also works out if the earth is flat and the sun is both small and close by.

[Arkandel]

@Cheesegrater What do flat earthers say about calling their friends in different timezones at noon and it's night where they are?

[Kanye Qwest]

I'm just furious at all of you.