The Shame Game

[Cupcake]

@surreality said in The Shame Game:
hat experience may humiliate someone in the process -- but it doesn't tend to be the real goal.

That's the message I'm getting. Though chalk me up as one of those people the self-awareness of a turnip. I'm trying though, and I think my current personal circumstances have upswinged to a point where I'm able to see some improvement. Admittedly it's subjective, but I'm trying.

[surreality]

@Cupcake We are all the person with the self-awareness of a turnip sometimes. Every last one of us.

Sometimes, I wish more folks would remember that, really. Would prevent the decent-intentioned sorts from beating themselves up too hard when it happens, remind the folks who really suffer from it the most that hey, mayyyyyyyyyybe they should at least consider what's going on there, and... well, the shameless jerks intent on being shameless jerks, they're still going to keep shinin' on like that crazy diamond more or less no matter what.

[Thenomain]

@surreality said in The Shame Game:

@Cupcake We are all the person with the self-awareness of a turnip sometimes. Every last one of us.

Some more than others.

@Coin...

[Pandora]

Most shameless jerks, I have found, are pretty self-aware. Shameless jerk generally being a label applied to people that don't have much regard for wording things politely, regardless of whatever their message/intent may be. Show me an asshole that honestly doesn't know they're an asshole and I'll show you someone that probably has a few indicators of a personality disorder. The problem is, when someone acknowledges that they're a jerk/asshole/rude person and then asks that their opinion be taken with a grain of salt but still be taken because it's valid outside of the less-than-polite delivery method, someone invariably slaps up an 'EDGY, HUH?' meme because it's easier than thinking.

[Kestrel]

@Pandora said in The Shame Game:

Show me an asshole that honestly doesn't know they're an asshole and I'll show you someone that probably has a few indicators of a personality disorder.

This is a pretty meaningless statement. 'Anti-social personality disorder' is also a personality disorder. Besides, the bolded part (and especially the italic part) could apply to literally every person on earth.

@Cupcake: unpopular opinion, but I think your thread sparked some poignant debate. I'm not sure why anyone thinks citing a source is pretentious. No one's saying you can't disagree with an argument just because a cited source supports it. Thanks for providing food for thought.

I also think it's funny that someone got shamed for trying to bring up the shame game. I guess the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about the Fight Club?

[Coin]

@WTFE said in The Shame Game:

I can and will not speak for others. I can and will, however, speak for myself.

I don't believe that shaming changes anything essential in a person. Shamed people will not suddenly say "I was wrong all along; I will mend my ways". Belief in this is nonsense.

Yet…

There remains an effect that can lead to change, even in a person's essentials. See, many of our behaviours are ingrained habits which have internalized to the point of being identity. Shaming people's behaviours gets them to stop doing it (whether they agree with the change or not). If it gets them to stop doing it long enough, the habit is replaced by a new habit; presumably one that is less offensive to the people around them (however you define "around them").

Basically, if there's enough removed positive reinforcement in a person's social group, behaviours--and eventually attitudes--will change. The key word there is "enough". And it depends also on the perceived social group.

So the shame game here can have an effect. It's not guaranteed to, but it is an ingredient in effecting change. The fact that it is also fun for the people playing it is a bit of icing.

(This is over and above the other reasons cited above like documenting misbehaviour, providing an "audit trail" so to speak, providing a voice in a forum not controlled by game owners, etc. These, too, are an issue. I'm just specifically addressing the "shame" angle.)

This is also why it's necessary to speak up when your friends or other people say racist, sexist, or other discriminatory things in your presence. I think we've all held our tongues at some point or another to avoid drama, but there's something to be said for being the one willing to take the social gut punch and clear their throat (loudly) when someone is being a douche.

@Lithium said in The Shame Game:

Reading a book doesn't make anyones opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's.

All opinions are worth exactly as much as anyone is willing to give them worth.

All opinions matter more, or less, than someone else's depending on who is hearing the opinion and who is saying the opinion.

Just have your opinion.

There is zero need for justification.

Your opinion will be judged on a person by person basis, possibly with up or down votes or replies.

If you're afraid of your opinion being judged, don't voice it.

lulz, what?

So because there is zero need of justification for an opinion (which I disagree this was, it was actually more akin to a reasoning, not a justification) that means that they shouldn't express it? How reductive of you.

if @Cupcake wants us to know where they got the notion in the first place, why is that a bad thing? I haven't read anything they've said that leads me to believe they are using some book to justify their point of view--they just read a book, found this interesting, and brought it up. It's even helpful to have mentioned the book because some of us might want to read up on the topic from a professional, whether that professional's research is of any value to you or not.

@Thenomain said in The Shame Game:

@surreality said in The Shame Game:

@Cupcake We are all the person with the self-awareness of a turnip sometimes. Every last one of us.

Some more than others.

@Coin...

Hrm? Sorry, I was busy being awesome somewhere. What did you need?

[Lithium]

@Coin That's not what I said at all.

I can't fathom how you got that from what I wrote. Seriously.

I said /IF/ you're afraid of your opinion being judged, don't voice it.

That's the only time I ever even made /any/ allusions to not voicing an opinion at all.

What I /SAID/ was that all opinions have the same propensity of equal weight regardless of who says them. It's an opinion, it is not a fact. Therefor people will judge the opinion based on their standards, that's all anyone can do.

I sometimes wonder about this place.

[Coin]

@Lithium said in The Shame Game:

@Coin That's not what I said at all.

I can't fathom how you got that from what I wrote. Seriously.

I said /IF/ you're afraid of your opinion being judged, don't voice it.

That's the only time I ever even made /any/ allusions to not voicing an opinion at all.

What I /SAID/ was that all opinions have the same propensity of equal weight regardless of who says them. It's an opinion, it is not a fact. Therefor people will judge the opinion based on their standards, that's all anyone can do.

I sometimes wonder about this place.

Kay.

[Tyche]

"Men walk this tightrope where any sign of weakness illicits shame, and so they're afraid to make themselves vulnerable for fear of looking weak." - Brene Brown

I think she's saying that it works, but she just doesn't like it.
And she spelled 'elicits' wrong.

[Coin]

@Tyche said in The Shame Game:

"Men walk this tightrope where any sign of weakness illicits shame, and so they're afraid to make themselves vulnerable for fear of looking weak." - Brene Brown

I think she's saying that it works, but she just doesn't like it.
And she spelled 'elicits' wrong.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion just from that quote. Also, without seeing where you got it from, I can't tell if the misspelling was hers, or the fault of whoever transcribed it.

[Ganymede]

@Lithium said in The Shame Game:

What I /SAID/ was that all opinions have the same propensity of equal weight regardless of who says them. It's an opinion, it is not a fact. Therefor people will judge the opinion based on their standards, that's all anyone can do.

I'm of the opinion that not all opinions have equal weight. Opinions that are formed from personal knowledge, reading and evaluating the works of others, and/or critically thinking about the same have substantially more weight than those without.

By saying that opinions "have the same propensity" of equal weight, I'm unsure if you mean that all opinions without critical evaluation by the listener have the same weight. If so, then I agree: it's all just words. In context, to say that all opinions have the same weight, however, sounds like a very dangerous belief -- the sort that promotes plutocrats to positions of power.

[surreality]

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

I'm not sure why anyone thinks citing a source is pretentious.

Try reading, then. It's explained. (Even though I agree that it isn't in this case.)

I also think it's funny that someone got shamed for trying to bring up the shame game.

You clearly have a very broad interpretation of what shaming entails.

Someone expressing an opinion that something comes across as pretentious is not shaming someone, sweet creeping jesus.

Shaming someone would look a lot more like this:

"What the hell is wrong with you bringing that shit in here, don't you slather that pop psychology tripe all over the place like you're now the enlightened one coming down to talk to us sad, ignorant fucks, because you read some self-help book! Who the hell do you think you are and how stupid do you have to be to bring that crap here!"

...which precisely nobody said to anybody, even remotely.

But that would be shaming.

I would recommend that 'self-awareness' post or three that describe some of the problems that arise when someone doesn't have it.

I guess the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about the Fight Club?

...because nobody's doing that, nope.

Seriously, do you even read things? <-- There, that's some actual shaming. Now you can finally play victim with an actual thing to point at when you get all huffy in the knickers, lawdy be.

[Kestrel]

@surreality said in The Shame Game:

I would recommend that 'self-awareness' post or three that describe some of the problems that arise when someone doesn't have it.

Ditto.

[surreality]

@Kestrel I am thoroughly aware that I'm being bitchy as fuck to you, because your faux superiority and 'poor me I'm a victim' behavior when someone so much as questions you (which you then use for justifications to whine and bang on and hand-wring and behave nastily yourself) makes my eyes roll so hard there's a cramp forming.

Was that not abundantly clear? I'm sorry, let me clarify: I think you're exactly the sort of hypocrite that needs a long look in the mirror.

See, in your self-righteous ramble (which was corrected, I notice you didn't respond to being wrong or making all manner of crazy assumptions anywhere) you claim:

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

But I think it pays, when you feel the need to shame someone, to try and connect with them as a person, first.

...and yet, repeatedly, it is so blazingly obvious that you aren't even reading what you're responding to, for content or otherwise, that you couldn't connect with what's being said if someone hooked a USB port to the back of your skull and downloaded it directly, let alone with anyone else's point of view.

Is that an exceptionally cunty way to put it? Sure is.

Is it inaccurate? Nope.

Your intended barb thus sailed right past and stuck in the wall behind me; you're transparent enough I could see it coming ten miles away.

[acceleration]

[Ghost]

But let's be clear here: The Hog Pit isn't about 'shaming' people in this neo-pop-psychology 'OH MY GOD STOP TRIGGERING ME!' millennial sense. Set ALL of that pop psychology for big bucks aside.

The glory of the internet, and in forums, is that people cannot be silenced mid-flight. On MSB, you can put your thoughts out without being interrupted or hushed.

Some people use this to take out their aggressiveness on others in a way that allows them to land punches with very little fear of damaging response. The people that do this tend to be a little sadistic, but are ultimately cowardly.

However, the internet and the MU community is fiiiiiilled with self-centered types who pull all kinds of stupid human tricks for whatever their twisted point of view is. Some of these people don't practice what they preach, or jockey for their own gain at the expense of others, or just spew all kinds of hypocritical nonsense. SOME people stalk female players OOCly. SOME people lie about what theyre doing as staff or as players.

The Hog Pit is mayyyybe 10% shaming to 90% getting it out on the table so that people can't hide behind a wall of fake, political bullshit. We don't get this ability to place these bullshit things on the table server-side, because we ALL have horror stories about corrupt staff silencing naysayers, because at the end of the day, the person who pays for the server, bat shit crazy or not, wields the ban hammer.

Like the time Mal(Brice) from SerenityMush froze my character and held it for ransom until I was willing to admit to him, via phone, that I did something ICly to his wife's character out of anger at myself. It was crazy as fuck that he did this...and I told him to go fuck himself, and let the character go. This stuff happens.

(Edit/note: Yes, he literally tried to teach me a lesson about his feelings on my own inward self-esteem, and held my character over my head until I agreed with his assessment over why I chose to do something IC.)

'Shaming' infers a want to make the other person feel shame. No. A lot of these posts are about 'STAAAHP YOUR BULLSHIT NOW, YOU'RE RUINING THIS HOBBY FOR GOOD PLAYERS!' There is definitely a difference.

[Coin]

@Ghost said in The Shame Game:

But let's be clear here: The Hog Pit isn't about 'shaming' people in this neo-pop-psychology 'OH MY GOD STOP TRIGGERING ME!' millennial sense. Set ALL of that pop psychology for big bucks aside.

The glory of the internet, and in forums, is that people cannot be silenced mid-flight. On MSB, you can put your thoughts out without --

I'mma let you finish, but I don't really agree with your opening statement, which means the rest of this is poop, which means I'm not going to read it, effectively interrupting and disregarding everything else you wrote.

Just FYI.

[Hella]

[surreality]

Pretty much, @Ghost.

Here's an example. This is why I'm calling you out, @Kestrel.

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

The 'culture of bitching' that's been explained to me as an integral part of these boards, while perhaps cathartic for some, is really not something I consider healthy or productive for anyone involved. Why bitch for the sake of bitching? Why get angry for the sake of being angry?

Observe. You take a quote, and make assumptions. All negative. Further, you use them to generalize about the community at large.

These are your words, and your behavior.

This is your advice:

But I think it pays, when you feel the need to shame someone, to try and connect with them as a person, first.

Did you do that? Did you follow your own advice? No, you didn't. Not even a little. You grabbed a comment, ascribed a lot of additional negativity to it, and attempted to use it against an entire community.

And nowhere do you address this when called out on it. You wonder why I'm calling you a hypocrite? Own your shit. This is your shit. It stinks. Be aware of it.

Instead of behaving like an adult and going, 'D'oh, maybe I should consider that!' -- which, by the by, earns people a lot of respect around here when they do it, because owning your shit earns a lot more respect than pretending your shit doesn't stink -- your next comment is, instead, a continued attempt to tar the community at large.

This is also entertaining because it includes the following inherent contradiction:

@Kestrel said in The Shame Game:

I think your thread sparked some poignant debate.

...which would not have happened if:

I guess the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about the Fight Club?

I mean we're two for two here, in both cases, assuming moral superiority and trying to put down an entire community, while not just ignoring what's been said by multiple parties, but doing so in a way that thoroughly ignores the advice you're saying everyone else should take.

Yes, I find that incredibly lacking in self-awareness, and I have zero qualms calling it out. If this means your buddy brigade and the hate squad I've called out before decides to pile on the downvotes, hey, I have only this to offer:

I mean, shit, the text is right there, there's a reason I keep asking if you're really reading anything, and I'm not the only one who has asked you this.

Maybe it's really time to read shit that's been written, at the very least.

[Ghost]

@Coin said in The Shame Game:

@Ghost said in The Shame Game:

But let's be clear here: The Hog Pit isn't about 'shaming' people in this neo-pop-psychology 'OH MY GOD STOP TRIGGERING ME!' millennial sense. Set ALL of that pop psychology for big bucks aside.

The glory of the internet, and in forums, is that people cannot be silenced mid-flight. On MSB, you can put your thoughts out without --

I'mma let you finish, but I don't really agree with your opening statement, which means the rest of this is poop, which means I'm not going to read it, effectively interrupting and disregarding everything else you wrote.

Just FYI.

I didn't read anything after "Imma let you finish" because you triggered me and I'm secretly a Swift fan.

But I won't admit that I read all of it, even if I did, because I don't want you to feel any validation from your post.

#boardtacticsexplained