The Case For Shunning
February 27, 2023 8:00 AM Subscribe
"I don't know about you, but I get shamed for the things I say all the time, from supremacists and bigots, from people whose criticism I desire and from whose company I hope to be shunned. I would be ashamed to hold beliefs they would approve of. They may mischaracterize me, but they understand me very well. And I crave their understanding. I want them to know exactly what I think of them. That’s what the shunning is for." A.R. Moxon writes a fiery response to Scott Adams' racism (previously) and the New York Times' hypocrisy over J.K. Rowling and trans rights.
It's really an excellent essay.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:23 AM on February 27, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 8:23 AM on February 27, 2023 [6 favorites]
I often see young people arguing against "cringe culture" and shame more broadly, which is great insofar as it applies to, say, being in fandom or wearing clothes and hair that They say you shouldn't.
The thing is, I think shame is an important part of how a society functions. Of course it can be misused, and often it is -- it's just a tool. A person feels physical pain when they're hit with a hammer, and they feel emotional pain when they're shamed. It's not fun, it's not perfect, and it never will be. But it's been part of primate life since one Proconsul hissed at another for stealing her fruit.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:32 AM on February 27, 2023 [20 favorites]
The thing is, I think shame is an important part of how a society functions. Of course it can be misused, and often it is -- it's just a tool. A person feels physical pain when they're hit with a hammer, and they feel emotional pain when they're shamed. It's not fun, it's not perfect, and it never will be. But it's been part of primate life since one Proconsul hissed at another for stealing her fruit.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:32 AM on February 27, 2023 [20 favorites]
At a certain point, it seems to me that we have to conclude that what such people are actually advocating for is not to use sunlight to expose and disinfect our society of bigotry, but simply to have a society in which bigotry is free to dance in the sun.THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE
posted by flabdablet at 9:02 AM on February 27, 2023 [72 favorites]
For those of you born in more modern times than me, the “funny pages” are a section of newspapers devoted to comic strips, and “comic strips” are a little bit like manga if a manga were a sitcom and the sitcom were about 10 seconds and 1 joke long, and “newspapers” were … you know what? we could be here all day. Look up the archaic words you don’t know please.Hah, excellent. (and the rest of it as well, but the other bit I wanted to quote most has already been covered)
posted by CrystalDave at 9:10 AM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
I wish shame was something we could use against terrible people more often. But because -- by definition -- it's a tool of the dominant/in-group, it's impossible to use against them unless someone in that group does it.
As a big, white dude I am conscious of the fact that me shaming someone else is very often going to be punching down, so I won't...unless I see another white dude who needs to be told off, and then I can deploy my status For Good!
In this essay, it feels very much like Moxon is using shame juuust perfectly.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:11 AM on February 27, 2023 [19 favorites]
As a big, white dude I am conscious of the fact that me shaming someone else is very often going to be punching down, so I won't...unless I see another white dude who needs to be told off, and then I can deploy my status For Good!
In this essay, it feels very much like Moxon is using shame juuust perfectly.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:11 AM on February 27, 2023 [19 favorites]
They don't care about freedom of speech at all, they want freedom from consequence.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:13 AM on February 27, 2023 [64 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:13 AM on February 27, 2023 [64 favorites]
I am reminded of Jason Isbell's observation that about bad faith arguments:
Adams assumes the people calling for him to be shunned have to be fucking around, are just picking on people they do not like, because he does not believe any of his own arguments, they're just instruments he uses to target people whom he does not like.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:14 AM on February 27, 2023 [34 favorites]
I think we’ve gotten to a point where so many bad faith actors have come onto the scene and argued things that they didn’t really believe in order to rile up their fan base or their constituency or their family that it’s easy to assume that everybody is arguing in bad faith.That's really it anymore, isn't it? It's not just people arguing in bad faith, it's people supposing that arguing in good faith no longer even exists.
I think if we could figure out a way just to convince people that, “I’m not trying to trick you into anything, I really just truly believe this is better for all of us,” then we might be able to make some progress with it, but some people just don’t want to listen.
Adams assumes the people calling for him to be shunned have to be fucking around, are just picking on people they do not like, because he does not believe any of his own arguments, they're just instruments he uses to target people whom he does not like.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:14 AM on February 27, 2023 [34 favorites]
We've got a great word for people like Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert, who can't draw hands apparently) and that word is Bigot. We should use that word more often, and with extreme prejudice. While the Left is not devoid of bigotry, the Left often loses power over words (like woke) because the right is better at aggressively framing issues with simple signifier words that convey their moral outrage concisely. This is an opportunity.
Scott Adams is a Bigot. Marjorie Greene is a Bigot. JK Rowling is a Bigot.
Not tolerating bigotry isn't intolerance, it's sanity.
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:17 AM on February 27, 2023 [44 favorites]
Scott Adams is a Bigot. Marjorie Greene is a Bigot. JK Rowling is a Bigot.
Not tolerating bigotry isn't intolerance, it's sanity.
posted by OHenryPacey at 9:17 AM on February 27, 2023 [44 favorites]
Not tolerating bigotry isn't intolerance, it's sanity civilization.
posted by chavenet at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2023 [42 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 9:20 AM on February 27, 2023 [42 favorites]
All coverage of Scott Adams pratfalls need a metafiltersown tag. One of our finest hours.
posted by sy at 9:21 AM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by sy at 9:21 AM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
I often see young people arguing against "cringe culture" and shame more broadly, which is great insofar as it applies to, say, being in fandom or wearing clothes and hair that They say you shouldn't.
The thing is, I think shame is an important part of how a society functions. Of course it can be misused, and often it is -- it's just a tool. A person feels physical pain when they're hit with a hammer, and they feel emotional pain when they're shamed. It's not fun, it's not perfect, and it never will be. But it's been part of primate life since one Proconsul hissed at another for stealing her fruit.
Yes.
There's a massive difference between someone saying
"I love music by [musician's name], and I refuse to be embarrassed about it"
versus someone saying
"LGBT people/people of X ethnicity or Y racial heritage should have less legal rights/less human rights".
No one should be made to feel ashamed for liking a particular artist (unless that artist has done something heinous, like for example Rolf Harris.)
But people SHOULD be made to feel ashamed for trying to make things so that [marginalised group] has less legal rights/less human rights.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:26 AM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
The thing is, I think shame is an important part of how a society functions. Of course it can be misused, and often it is -- it's just a tool. A person feels physical pain when they're hit with a hammer, and they feel emotional pain when they're shamed. It's not fun, it's not perfect, and it never will be. But it's been part of primate life since one Proconsul hissed at another for stealing her fruit.
Yes.
There's a massive difference between someone saying
"I love music by [musician's name], and I refuse to be embarrassed about it"
versus someone saying
"LGBT people/people of X ethnicity or Y racial heritage should have less legal rights/less human rights".
No one should be made to feel ashamed for liking a particular artist (unless that artist has done something heinous, like for example Rolf Harris.)
But people SHOULD be made to feel ashamed for trying to make things so that [marginalised group] has less legal rights/less human rights.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:26 AM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
Scott Adams is a Bigot. Marjorie Greene is a Bigot. JK Rowling is a Bigot.
They’re owning this one now. Even so, we have to keep at it.
Lately, I’ve been finding myself saying that somebody “exploded.” Like “yeah, Scott Adams exploded,” or “I used to really like her stuff, too bad she exploded.”
posted by Countess Elena at 9:39 AM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
They’re owning this one now. Even so, we have to keep at it.
Lately, I’ve been finding myself saying that somebody “exploded.” Like “yeah, Scott Adams exploded,” or “I used to really like her stuff, too bad she exploded.”
posted by Countess Elena at 9:39 AM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
But because -- by definition -- it's a tool of the dominant/in-group, it's impossible to use against them unless someone in that group does it.
You realize that by framing it this way, you're effectively affirming that "bigotry" IS the in-group. I don't accept that it is.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:45 AM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
You realize that by framing it this way, you're effectively affirming that "bigotry" IS the in-group. I don't accept that it is.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:45 AM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
All coverage of Scott Adams pratfalls need a metafiltersown tag.
Done.
posted by grouse at 9:49 AM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Done.
posted by grouse at 9:49 AM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
All coverage of Scott Adams pratfalls need a metafiltersown tag. One of our finest hours.
At least until we get a metafilterdisown tag.
posted by straight at 9:52 AM on February 27, 2023 [19 favorites]
At least until we get a metafilterdisown tag.
posted by straight at 9:52 AM on February 27, 2023 [19 favorites]
Lately, I’ve been finding myself saying that somebody “exploded.” Like “yeah, Scott Adams exploded,” or “I used to really like her stuff, too bad she exploded.”
I like "went off" because it could mean "exploded" or "rotted" or "curdled" and all of those work.
posted by flabdablet at 9:58 AM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
I like "went off" because it could mean "exploded" or "rotted" or "curdled" and all of those work.
posted by flabdablet at 9:58 AM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
Moxon seems to have more than one article on that site worth reading:
We've got a real-life Toxic Airborne Event in Ohio. Why? Because not having one was going to be expensive. But who pays now?
posted by straight at 10:07 AM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
We've got a real-life Toxic Airborne Event in Ohio. Why? Because not having one was going to be expensive. But who pays now?
posted by straight at 10:07 AM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
until we get a metafilterdisown tag
Or in this case maybe metafilterpwns?
posted by Riki tiki at 10:26 AM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Or in this case maybe metafilterpwns?
posted by Riki tiki at 10:26 AM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
That was a good read. This bit got me thinking, though, where Dilbert creator Scott Adams says "My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed."
Among some people, yes. But he has made his bones with some other people. He'll be able to sell coffee mugs with Dilbert on one side and thin-blue-line flags on the other to racist simps who will buy them by the case just to show their solidarity, and he'll be able to build a retirement villa in Florida (I mean, where else?) with the proceeds.
posted by adamrice at 10:27 AM on February 27, 2023 [10 favorites]
Among some people, yes. But he has made his bones with some other people. He'll be able to sell coffee mugs with Dilbert on one side and thin-blue-line flags on the other to racist simps who will buy them by the case just to show their solidarity, and he'll be able to build a retirement villa in Florida (I mean, where else?) with the proceeds.
posted by adamrice at 10:27 AM on February 27, 2023 [10 favorites]
Scott Adams.... [is] very impressed by his own lack of stupidity, and also very impressed by what he perceives as the extreme stupidity of almost everyone else. He’s not impressed by too much else. He’s mostly skeptical.
Oooh, he nailed Adams. I've known more than a few people like Adams, who thought they were so incredibly intelligent and well-informed and that everyone else was so exasperatingly stupid and didn't know anything, and that they therefore had the right to tell them so... and who were absolutely outraged to be criticized in any way for such an ignorant attitude and abusive behaviour.
posted by orange swan at 10:31 AM on February 27, 2023 [20 favorites]
Oooh, he nailed Adams. I've known more than a few people like Adams, who thought they were so incredibly intelligent and well-informed and that everyone else was so exasperatingly stupid and didn't know anything, and that they therefore had the right to tell them so... and who were absolutely outraged to be criticized in any way for such an ignorant attitude and abusive behaviour.
posted by orange swan at 10:31 AM on February 27, 2023 [20 favorites]
People, I think what you're forgetting here is that he has a certified genius I.Q., and that's hard to hide.
posted by brundlefly at 10:34 AM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by brundlefly at 10:34 AM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
you're effectively affirming that "bigotry" IS the in-group
I don't think bigotry is the in-group but I think unfortunately the US is built on several axes of hierarchy. A lot of bigots, like Adams, sit on top of the various ladders involved and like pissing down on different people. Bigotry isn't the in-group but if you are in the in-group it's easy to justify your status by assuming people in out-groups are inferior (bigotry).
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:41 AM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
I don't think bigotry is the in-group but I think unfortunately the US is built on several axes of hierarchy. A lot of bigots, like Adams, sit on top of the various ladders involved and like pissing down on different people. Bigotry isn't the in-group but if you are in the in-group it's easy to justify your status by assuming people in out-groups are inferior (bigotry).
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:41 AM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think what you're forgetting here is that he has a certified genius I.Q., and that's hard to hide.
My stint as a member of MENSA may have been brief, but I am grateful for one thing - it taught me that having a "certified genius IQ" isn't a big deal.
Someone asked me about that once, and I used an analogy - IQ is a measure of capacity; it's like the markings on the size of a pitcher telling you how much it can hold. The real thing to impress people with is what you put in that pitcher or how you use it.
Like, people are going to be way more excited about a pint of champagne than they would be about a gallon of rancid strawberry Yoo-Hoo.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:43 AM on February 27, 2023 [70 favorites]
My stint as a member of MENSA may have been brief, but I am grateful for one thing - it taught me that having a "certified genius IQ" isn't a big deal.
Someone asked me about that once, and I used an analogy - IQ is a measure of capacity; it's like the markings on the size of a pitcher telling you how much it can hold. The real thing to impress people with is what you put in that pitcher or how you use it.
Like, people are going to be way more excited about a pint of champagne than they would be about a gallon of rancid strawberry Yoo-Hoo.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:43 AM on February 27, 2023 [70 favorites]
If you read Adams' autobiographical writing, which I don't recommend -- I saw it years before all this -- you'll see that he was always trying to be a macher. He bragged about business successes, particularly the kind involving screwing over others. He turned to cartoons once he had a steady job and was bored with it. Other cartoonists loved comics or at least comedy from a young age; Scott Adams got into cartooning for the love of Scott Adams. He always thought he was the smartest guy in the room, and the world is full of seething office workers who believe the same thing, often for good reason.
Thus his success. He fell into that, and if he plays his cards right, he'll fall right in with the MAGA crowd without missing a mortgage payment.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:46 AM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
Thus his success. He fell into that, and if he plays his cards right, he'll fall right in with the MAGA crowd without missing a mortgage payment.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:46 AM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
I am at least relieved that bothsidesism can STFU long enough for the headlines to mostly say variations on "Scott Adams gives racist rant" rather than "Scott Adams accused of racism after controversial rant." I mean, it's not a given... JK Rowling headlines... Yeah.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:58 AM on February 27, 2023 [17 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:58 AM on February 27, 2023 [17 favorites]
Has anybody here actually read that book he wrote on how to fail upwards? I'm curious to know whether Step 1 is "be male and white" but I can't be arsed looking up the actual title to find out so for the time being I'm just going to assume that it isn't.
posted by flabdablet at 10:58 AM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 10:58 AM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
...and having posted that comment I have just spotted that this is the A.R. Moxon thread, not the Scott Adams thread (darn you, tabbed browsing, darn you to heck) and although it's not quite an Ohio-level derail perhaps we should take further riffing on the disappointing creator of Garfield over there.
posted by flabdablet at 11:05 AM on February 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 11:05 AM on February 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
The AR Moxon essay linked in the post is about Scott Adams, so it seems fine.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:08 AM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:08 AM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Moxon seems to have more than one article on that site worth reading
Indeed. I'm currently very much enjoying working my way through Sabotage.
posted by flabdablet at 11:10 AM on February 27, 2023
Indeed. I'm currently very much enjoying working my way through Sabotage.
posted by flabdablet at 11:10 AM on February 27, 2023
Most people want solutions, yet solutions never materialize, even though we know what the solutions are. Even the hope of solutions seems distant.Holy shit this man can write.
The root problem appears to be that we can’t get the people who want problems to give us permission to fix the problems, and we can’t get the people who claim to want to fix the problems to stop asking those people for permission.
And there are other things, too, but they all seem to boil down to this issue: We can’t fix what’s broken, because the people who want things broken appear to be in charge of deciding whether or not broken things get fixed.
These all seem like serious problems.
It seems like we might want to fix serious problems, and yet we don’t fix them. In fact we seem to do anything and everything but fix them.
So they start to seem like ways in which society is failing.
They almost seem like society is being made to fail.
Which I don’t actually think we want, mostly.
Do you want society to fail? I don’t. Society is where I live. It’s where I keep my hopes and dreams for my kids.
posted by flabdablet at 11:21 AM on February 27, 2023 [37 favorites]
“comic strips” are a little bit like manga if a manga were a sitcom and the sitcom were about 10 seconds and 1 joke longMoxon could've just said they're like yonkoma but sankoma.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:22 AM on February 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
She quotes a NYT editorial: "Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right ... to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned." She asks, "Really? That’s a fundamental right? To speak without being shamed or shunned? To be able to say anything without being understood as somebody who said it? No matter what is said?"
But of course the NYT editorialists don't think that applies universally. They go on to explain, "People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through..."
We all agree that some opinions deserve shaming and shunning, and some don't. No one wants to have to hug Nazis, and no one wants to worry about losing their job because of their opinion on the appropriate capital gains tax rate. But it's rarely that clear. Some issues are beyond the pale, but it's hard to locate the pale.
In particular, there's just the whole "just asking questions." Good faith questions exist - ones that are asked by people who are genuinely trying to learn, either to gather factual information or to better understand other people's experiences and opinions. But "just asking questions" is so often a lazy shield for bad-faith actors that it can be hard to discern the actual motive.
Consider this a request for focused arguments: Don't accuse people of 1) being free-speech absolutists, regardless of the social harms, or 2) opposing productive public debate on undecided issues. No one falls into those stereotypes. I think it's more accurate and productive to say "I don't agree that this is a subject on which the answer is clear enough to end debate." or "The correct answer is so well established that I find any questions to be effectively in bad faith."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:31 AM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
But of course the NYT editorialists don't think that applies universally. They go on to explain, "People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through..."
We all agree that some opinions deserve shaming and shunning, and some don't. No one wants to have to hug Nazis, and no one wants to worry about losing their job because of their opinion on the appropriate capital gains tax rate. But it's rarely that clear. Some issues are beyond the pale, but it's hard to locate the pale.
In particular, there's just the whole "just asking questions." Good faith questions exist - ones that are asked by people who are genuinely trying to learn, either to gather factual information or to better understand other people's experiences and opinions. But "just asking questions" is so often a lazy shield for bad-faith actors that it can be hard to discern the actual motive.
Consider this a request for focused arguments: Don't accuse people of 1) being free-speech absolutists, regardless of the social harms, or 2) opposing productive public debate on undecided issues. No one falls into those stereotypes. I think it's more accurate and productive to say "I don't agree that this is a subject on which the answer is clear enough to end debate." or "The correct answer is so well established that I find any questions to be effectively in bad faith."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:31 AM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
Everything orange swan said.
Show me a conservative who brags about “telling it like it is” and scoffs at liberal snowflakes for being “too sensitive,” and I’ll show you someone who has a complete emotional meltdown when anyone tells them, “The way you behave is alienating people. You are not being oppressed, you’re just becoming unpopular as a direct consequence of your outspoken contempt for other humans.”
Apparently this kind of feedback is a bridge too far for the “brutal honesty” crowd.
Let them die mad about it.
posted by armeowda at 11:37 AM on February 27, 2023 [76 favorites]
Show me a conservative who brags about “telling it like it is” and scoffs at liberal snowflakes for being “too sensitive,” and I’ll show you someone who has a complete emotional meltdown when anyone tells them, “The way you behave is alienating people. You are not being oppressed, you’re just becoming unpopular as a direct consequence of your outspoken contempt for other humans.”
Apparently this kind of feedback is a bridge too far for the “brutal honesty” crowd.
Let them die mad about it.
posted by armeowda at 11:37 AM on February 27, 2023 [76 favorites]
They go on to explain, "People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through..."
Yeah, that's weaselly bad faith argumentation from the NYT, which is currently trying to justify bothsidesing transphobia. We are not obliged to treat bigotry in good faith, and free speech means having to accept the consequences of what you say and how others respond. "Unpopular" is by itself an utterly meaningless word outside of the point that the thing is not liked, and used in that way is a classic bad faith argument used to deflect from actually discussing the underlying point, for fear of realizing that there was much less good faith than was presented.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:47 AM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
Yeah, that's weaselly bad faith argumentation from the NYT, which is currently trying to justify bothsidesing transphobia. We are not obliged to treat bigotry in good faith, and free speech means having to accept the consequences of what you say and how others respond. "Unpopular" is by itself an utterly meaningless word outside of the point that the thing is not liked, and used in that way is a classic bad faith argument used to deflect from actually discussing the underlying point, for fear of realizing that there was much less good faith than was presented.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:47 AM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
DirtyOldTown: “That's really it anymore, isn't it? It's not just people arguing in bad faith, it's people supposing that arguing in good faith no longer even exists.”My longtime thesis is that the defining feature of conservative psychology is that they honestly, truly believe with their whole hearts and souls that everyone else on the planet is just as big of a piece of shit as they are.
posted by ob1quixote at 11:50 AM on February 27, 2023 [60 favorites]
We can’t fix what’s broken, because the people who want things broken appear to be in charge of deciding whether or not broken things get fixed.
THIS IS MY JOB IN A NUTSHELL. Things have been broken for the entire 20 years I've been here and nobody in power wants to do anything to fix them. Probably because money would be involved in some cases, or it involves making some other office do it and they won't do it because it's not their fucking problem. We do SO MUCH EXTRA WORK for things that could be solved with money, or higher-ups finally granting us permission to not have to go through them every effing time, and we're not even allowed to talk about the latter happening. We are basically working around THIS broken staircase.Fifty years from now, I'll be long dead and this place will have the same problems.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:52 AM on February 27, 2023 [12 favorites]
THIS IS MY JOB IN A NUTSHELL. Things have been broken for the entire 20 years I've been here and nobody in power wants to do anything to fix them. Probably because money would be involved in some cases, or it involves making some other office do it and they won't do it because it's not their fucking problem. We do SO MUCH EXTRA WORK for things that could be solved with money, or higher-ups finally granting us permission to not have to go through them every effing time, and we're not even allowed to talk about the latter happening. We are basically working around THIS broken staircase.Fifty years from now, I'll be long dead and this place will have the same problems.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:52 AM on February 27, 2023 [12 favorites]
Thanks for posting, this was a great read. I have a meta-question, though. The author uses a rhetorical technique I've seen elsewhere, namely, using Adams' name over and over again, and things like "Scott Adams, author of Dilbert" multiple times.
Is this anything other than stylistic? Like is it a way to enshrine the connections digitally and online forever?
I love the style, just wondering if there's an explanation beyond.
posted by Gorgik at 11:56 AM on February 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
Is this anything other than stylistic? Like is it a way to enshrine the connections digitally and online forever?
I love the style, just wondering if there's an explanation beyond.
posted by Gorgik at 11:56 AM on February 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
For decades now, it has almost become a truism that not-liberals reallllly don't like it when you use their own rhetorical methods against them. A particularly popular source of outrage and victimhood is to filter their weasel words and dogwhistles to demonstrate that you understand what it is they're saying. They like to hide behind qualifiers and semantics, but you get to the heart of what they're saying and get ready for the pearl-clutching.
posted by Chuffy at 12:16 PM on February 27, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by Chuffy at 12:16 PM on February 27, 2023 [10 favorites]
Is this anything other than stylistic? Like is it a way to enshrine the connections digitally and online forever?
I think it's effectively pigeonholing Adams into the thing he's famous for, the thing that eventually elevated him to a position where his opinions and bigotry can be platformed. Take away Dilbert, and who is Scott Adams? I think that's part of the point...outside of Dilbert, what else does Adams have to offer?
posted by Chuffy at 12:20 PM on February 27, 2023 [6 favorites]
I think it's effectively pigeonholing Adams into the thing he's famous for, the thing that eventually elevated him to a position where his opinions and bigotry can be platformed. Take away Dilbert, and who is Scott Adams? I think that's part of the point...outside of Dilbert, what else does Adams have to offer?
posted by Chuffy at 12:20 PM on February 27, 2023 [6 favorites]
wenestvedt: I wish shame was something we could use against terrible people more often. But because -- by definition -- it's a tool of the dominant/in-group, it's impossible to use against them unless someone in that group does it.
The problem with shaming these sorts of people is that they're incapable of feeling shame. Experiencing shame requires a modicum of self-awareness, and a modicum of empathy for the people they've hurt in their actions. For someone like Scott Adams, or Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Donald Trump, or anyone else whose entire worldview is centered around themselves above all others (except others in their little in-group) no amount of shaming is capable of getting through to them. Do you think George Santos feels shame? He doesn't show it.
posted by SansPoint at 12:27 PM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
The problem with shaming these sorts of people is that they're incapable of feeling shame. Experiencing shame requires a modicum of self-awareness, and a modicum of empathy for the people they've hurt in their actions. For someone like Scott Adams, or Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Donald Trump, or anyone else whose entire worldview is centered around themselves above all others (except others in their little in-group) no amount of shaming is capable of getting through to them. Do you think George Santos feels shame? He doesn't show it.
posted by SansPoint at 12:27 PM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
The problem with shaming these sorts of people is that they're incapable of feeling shame.
That's a good point, and I suspect it's why the author focused on shunning instead of shaming. Whether they feel shame is under their control; whether we shun them is under ours.
posted by clawsoon at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2023 [45 favorites]
That's a good point, and I suspect it's why the author focused on shunning instead of shaming. Whether they feel shame is under their control; whether we shun them is under ours.
posted by clawsoon at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2023 [45 favorites]
I think what you're forgetting here is that he has a certified genius I.Q., and that's hard to hide.
So does Wile E. Coyote.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:43 PM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
So does Wile E. Coyote.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:43 PM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
All coverage of Scott Adams pratfalls need a metafiltersown tag. One of our finest hours.
At least until we get a metafilterdisown tag.
MeFi's Groan.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:43 PM on February 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
At least until we get a metafilterdisown tag.
MeFi's Groan.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:43 PM on February 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
Related: Don't Make Me Feel Bad for Doing a Bad Thing!
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:49 PM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:49 PM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
#metafiltersown
Surely #metafilterpwned in this case.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:51 PM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Surely #metafilterpwned in this case.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:51 PM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Shame stopped working once everybody got onto the Web. No matter how heinous or ludicrous your view, you can find a group to welcome you and make you feel you are right and the world is wrong.
Remember the line, 'Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for!' That's how shame gets neutered.
You tell MTG she's a bigot and she says, 'Coming from you that's high praise!'
You tell George Santos he's a liar and he says, 'So what, as long as I vote with my party you can't touch me.'
Either we find a more effective way or all this will eventually sink to the level of brute force conflict.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:52 PM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
Remember the line, 'Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for!' That's how shame gets neutered.
You tell MTG she's a bigot and she says, 'Coming from you that's high praise!'
You tell George Santos he's a liar and he says, 'So what, as long as I vote with my party you can't touch me.'
Either we find a more effective way or all this will eventually sink to the level of brute force conflict.
posted by zaixfeep at 12:52 PM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
If these bigots didn’t feel shame or social distress from disagreement, they wouldn’t be so upset about other people expressing their own views that the bigots are bigoted and acting in reprehensible ways, though.
I think in some cases that is a majority of what they feel, deep down; and a lot of the bigotry and bullying is all about covering up the gaping emotional holes in their psyches.
posted by eviemath at 1:09 PM on February 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
I think in some cases that is a majority of what they feel, deep down; and a lot of the bigotry and bullying is all about covering up the gaping emotional holes in their psyches.
posted by eviemath at 1:09 PM on February 27, 2023 [3 favorites]
There are definitely some high profile bigots who are completely faking indignation, but a lot of everyday bigots that each of us knows in real life are, on some level, being honest when they react to people being upset and hurt by them doing upsetting and hurtful things with “oh, so I’m not allowed to ___ anymore” or similar expressions. Think, for a related example, of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s comment that she was “allowed to believe” all sort of q-anon bullshit as if that was some sort of valid defense. These are people who don’t have a strong internal sense of self or of their own moral system, who really are feeling like they are being punished when we tell them they are doing or saying hurtful and wrong things. Now, that is neither reasonable nor emotionally healthy, of course. Nor does it in any way excuse the harm they do. But part of why they get so upset and reactionary is because they do indeed feel shame - a lot of it - and are desperately flailing around to try to change everything external so that they feel better about themselves, because they only know external validation or lack thereof. (Related to why so many come from religious or authoritarian backgrounds with child rearing practices centered around shame and punishment and all moral authority being externally imposed.)
posted by eviemath at 1:25 PM on February 27, 2023 [16 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 1:25 PM on February 27, 2023 [16 favorites]
Do you think George Santos feels shame? He doesn't show it.
I don’t think a person capable of the level of bald faced lying and grift has the capacity for shame. If he did, he would have at some point caught his own reflection in the mirror and stopped to ask himself what he’d done, and it would be his undoing. He’s a total lack of shame personified: the ability to look other people in the eye and smile the smile of someone who knows themselves to be in the right no matter how much absolutely awful shit they’ve done.
posted by Ghidorah at 1:38 PM on February 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don’t think a person capable of the level of bald faced lying and grift has the capacity for shame. If he did, he would have at some point caught his own reflection in the mirror and stopped to ask himself what he’d done, and it would be his undoing. He’s a total lack of shame personified: the ability to look other people in the eye and smile the smile of someone who knows themselves to be in the right no matter how much absolutely awful shit they’ve done.
posted by Ghidorah at 1:38 PM on February 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
EmpressC.: You realize that by framing it this way, you're effectively affirming that "bigotry" IS the in-group. I don't accept that it is.
(Whoops, sorry: I missed this, or I would have engaged sooner.)
Bigots in out groups don't have much political power, whereas bigots in the in group have outsize power -- just because they are In.
And yeah, today in America, white people are the In group, and there are a LOT of vocal bigots among us. There are a lot of quiet non-bigots, too, but guess whose voice gets amplified in the media & social media & political sphere? The shittiest people, of course. The Marjorie Taylor Greens and not the Dorothy Days.
So what I am saying is that Out Groups bigots don't matter much, because they're outsiders. I don't like it, it's just my observation. My preference is for people like Scott Adams to go down the drain, and for non-bigots to be heard.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:44 PM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
(Whoops, sorry: I missed this, or I would have engaged sooner.)
Bigots in out groups don't have much political power, whereas bigots in the in group have outsize power -- just because they are In.
And yeah, today in America, white people are the In group, and there are a LOT of vocal bigots among us. There are a lot of quiet non-bigots, too, but guess whose voice gets amplified in the media & social media & political sphere? The shittiest people, of course. The Marjorie Taylor Greens and not the Dorothy Days.
So what I am saying is that Out Groups bigots don't matter much, because they're outsiders. I don't like it, it's just my observation. My preference is for people like Scott Adams to go down the drain, and for non-bigots to be heard.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:44 PM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
Gorgik: The author uses a rhetorical technique I've seen elsewhere, namely, using Adams' name over and over again, and things like "Scott Adams, author of Dilbert" multiple times.
I believe it's crude SEO, to help make sure that any future web searchers who don't know much about Scott Adams will see this among the top results for a search.
That is, if some young man hears the name online and goes searching (because he wants to Do His Own Research), what he will find first is this scathing demonstration of why Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, sucks.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:56 PM on February 27, 2023 [14 favorites]
I believe it's crude SEO, to help make sure that any future web searchers who don't know much about Scott Adams will see this among the top results for a search.
That is, if some young man hears the name online and goes searching (because he wants to Do His Own Research), what he will find first is this scathing demonstration of why Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, sucks.
posted by wenestvedt at 1:56 PM on February 27, 2023 [14 favorites]
It just occurred to me that somebody might take this comment at face value. It's a joke in reference to the plannedchaos incident. I just want to make absolutely clear that I do not think that Scott Adams, creator of the newspaper comic strip Dilbert, is a genius.
posted by brundlefly at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by brundlefly at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2023 [8 favorites]
Also, I'll vouch that brundlefly is not Scott Adams.
posted by Pronoiac at 2:38 PM on February 27, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by Pronoiac at 2:38 PM on February 27, 2023 [12 favorites]
Also, I'll vouch that brundlefly is not Scott Adams.
Do we know that for sure? Because brundlefly is a genius.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:46 PM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Do we know that for sure? Because brundlefly is a genius.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:46 PM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
‘Dilbert’ distributor and book publisher drop creator Scott Adams over his racist remarks
posted by brundlefly at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by brundlefly at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2023 [11 favorites]
See? Genius!
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:24 PM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:24 PM on February 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
My longtime thesis is that the defining feature of conservative psychology is that they honestly, truly believe with their whole hearts and souls that everyone else on the planet is just as big of a piece of shit as they are.
Years ago (so long that I may not have this entirely right) there was a post that brought a bunch of people from some skeptic message board over to MeFi and MetaTalk. Some of them signed up to pontificate/defend themselves (against what I don't remember, and I can't find the metatalk). They expressed surprise that people on MF expected everyone to be operating in good faith, especially since so many people here use screen names. They thought using a screen name meant having a persona- and clearly having a persona meant that you could troll and be as cleverly manipulative and dishonest as you wanted too. In fact that was the whole point! The smarter and more skeptical you were the more you should be trolling other people to demonstrate to them what idiots they were. Or something.
I think of that whenever I think of the group of people- increasingly amassed on the right but really encompassing a bunch of Big Brain numpties in the "center" as well- that think being smart means getting one over on people before they get one over on you. The kind of people who think anytime someone gets an advantage, assistance, or attention someone else is losing out; and the only way to show how smart you are is to screw other people over before you get screwed.
posted by oneirodynia at 3:29 PM on February 27, 2023 [33 favorites]
Years ago (so long that I may not have this entirely right) there was a post that brought a bunch of people from some skeptic message board over to MeFi and MetaTalk. Some of them signed up to pontificate/defend themselves (against what I don't remember, and I can't find the metatalk). They expressed surprise that people on MF expected everyone to be operating in good faith, especially since so many people here use screen names. They thought using a screen name meant having a persona- and clearly having a persona meant that you could troll and be as cleverly manipulative and dishonest as you wanted too. In fact that was the whole point! The smarter and more skeptical you were the more you should be trolling other people to demonstrate to them what idiots they were. Or something.
I think of that whenever I think of the group of people- increasingly amassed on the right but really encompassing a bunch of Big Brain numpties in the "center" as well- that think being smart means getting one over on people before they get one over on you. The kind of people who think anytime someone gets an advantage, assistance, or attention someone else is losing out; and the only way to show how smart you are is to screw other people over before you get screwed.
posted by oneirodynia at 3:29 PM on February 27, 2023 [33 favorites]
My longtime thesis is that the defining feature of conservative psychology is that they honestly, truly believe with their whole hearts and souls that everyone else on the planet is just as big of a piece of shit as they are.
Agree. And I think it ties in with that apparent lack of shame. My take: bigots know they're losers, and their bigotry is a great big fat psychological defense mechanism against facing the shame of that. They have to believe that other people are of lower value than they are because they can't face their own lack of value. Same story with every other flavor of bully. The most bigoted people in red state cultures cannot stand the fact that they're doing so badly by pretty much every measure of success and well being (health and longevity metrics, divorce rates, education, income, handouts from vs. contribution to the federal budget), not to mention decisively losing the culture war--the only way they can cope is by deciding that Others (libs, nonwhite people, nonchristian people, LGBTQ people) are below them.
posted by Sublimity at 4:07 PM on February 27, 2023 [9 favorites]
Agree. And I think it ties in with that apparent lack of shame. My take: bigots know they're losers, and their bigotry is a great big fat psychological defense mechanism against facing the shame of that. They have to believe that other people are of lower value than they are because they can't face their own lack of value. Same story with every other flavor of bully. The most bigoted people in red state cultures cannot stand the fact that they're doing so badly by pretty much every measure of success and well being (health and longevity metrics, divorce rates, education, income, handouts from vs. contribution to the federal budget), not to mention decisively losing the culture war--the only way they can cope is by deciding that Others (libs, nonwhite people, nonchristian people, LGBTQ people) are below them.
posted by Sublimity at 4:07 PM on February 27, 2023 [9 favorites]
My take: bigots know they're losers
Dunning-Kruger, white courtesy phone...
posted by Chuffy at 4:23 PM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Dunning-Kruger, white courtesy phone...
posted by Chuffy at 4:23 PM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
attention someone else is losing out; and the only way to show how smart you are is to screw other people over before you get screwed
Delia Deetz, Gordon Gecko, please pick up the other white courtesy phone...edit: I see chuffy beat me to the courtesy phone ref, nice :)
These people don't feel badly about themselves. They believe they have the world figured out -- it's a bad neighbohood, nice folks finish last, if you want something you take it, and no one can take something from you without a fight. People who they can defeat (i.e. you) are by definition weak, stupid. unworthy of respect and deserve what they get. In other words, it's the animal kingdom.
They are delighted that you view them with such puzzlement and scientific detachment. As long as you do, they can win.
posted by zaixfeep at 4:26 PM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Delia Deetz, Gordon Gecko, please pick up the other white courtesy phone...edit: I see chuffy beat me to the courtesy phone ref, nice :)
These people don't feel badly about themselves. They believe they have the world figured out -- it's a bad neighbohood, nice folks finish last, if you want something you take it, and no one can take something from you without a fight. People who they can defeat (i.e. you) are by definition weak, stupid. unworthy of respect and deserve what they get. In other words, it's the animal kingdom.
They are delighted that you view them with such puzzlement and scientific detachment. As long as you do, they can win.
posted by zaixfeep at 4:26 PM on February 27, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yeesh... I gotta walk away from this thread. I might as well have added 'It's the Chicago way!' to my previous post. Please carry on...
posted by zaixfeep at 4:35 PM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by zaixfeep at 4:35 PM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
For those of you born in more modern times than me, the “funny pages” are a section of newspapers devoted to comic strips, and “comic strips” are a little bit like manga if a manga were a sitcom and the sitcom were about 10 seconds and 1 joke long, and “newspapers” were … you know what? we could be here all day. Look up the archaic words you don’t know please.
... Oh, man. How old is the person writing this?! A literal Boomer?
posted by wandering zinnia at 4:39 PM on February 27, 2023
... Oh, man. How old is the person writing this?! A literal Boomer?
posted by wandering zinnia at 4:39 PM on February 27, 2023
Most people want solutions....
*Some people* want solutions.
*Most people* appear to be content to point fingers and lay blame.
Looking for solutions implies that there will be change, and change is hard.
Some people don't want to share because they're greedy and don't think anyone else deserves pie. Some people think sharing sounds good, but still worry--What if there really isn't enough pie to go around?
It doesn't matter if it's pie or healthcare or respect. We're all afraid we won't get our fair share.
posted by BlueHorse at 4:40 PM on February 27, 2023 [6 favorites]
*Some people* want solutions.
*Most people* appear to be content to point fingers and lay blame.
Looking for solutions implies that there will be change, and change is hard.
Some people don't want to share because they're greedy and don't think anyone else deserves pie. Some people think sharing sounds good, but still worry--What if there really isn't enough pie to go around?
It doesn't matter if it's pie or healthcare or respect. We're all afraid we won't get our fair share.
posted by BlueHorse at 4:40 PM on February 27, 2023 [6 favorites]
skepticism is a common posture among those who believe one of the foundational tenets of supremacy, which is that reality must be mediated through and approved by them in order to be deemed real by the rest of us.
Wow, this line from the linked article spells out something that has been lurking in the back of my mind, and around the edges of my work world in particular, for a long time.
On a positive note, I have noticed that fewer and fewer of us are willing to look the other way and gloss over the behaviour of the Adamses of the world. I chair a lot of meetings for my job, and it used to be quite common for discussions to get derailed by the “need” to make sure we had some skeptic—almost always a middle-aged white dude— on side. Now we discuss things, and when it’s time for the vote, these guys are often just outvoted. If nothing else, changing demographics mean they are no longer the deciding group all the time. They don’t like it, but there’s no going back.
Hold the line. The times are changing, because we are changing them.
posted by rpfields at 5:27 PM on February 27, 2023 [24 favorites]
Wow, this line from the linked article spells out something that has been lurking in the back of my mind, and around the edges of my work world in particular, for a long time.
On a positive note, I have noticed that fewer and fewer of us are willing to look the other way and gloss over the behaviour of the Adamses of the world. I chair a lot of meetings for my job, and it used to be quite common for discussions to get derailed by the “need” to make sure we had some skeptic—almost always a middle-aged white dude— on side. Now we discuss things, and when it’s time for the vote, these guys are often just outvoted. If nothing else, changing demographics mean they are no longer the deciding group all the time. They don’t like it, but there’s no going back.
Hold the line. The times are changing, because we are changing them.
posted by rpfields at 5:27 PM on February 27, 2023 [24 favorites]
How timely, I just discovered AR Moxon recently.
How good a writer are they? I’m now thinking about rewatching Lost!
posted by bjrubble at 6:17 PM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
How good a writer are they? I’m now thinking about rewatching Lost!
posted by bjrubble at 6:17 PM on February 27, 2023 [4 favorites]
I love the style
I got echoes of Stewart Lee, which I enjoyed, because I like Stewart Lee.
posted by flabdablet at 8:35 PM on February 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
I got echoes of Stewart Lee, which I enjoyed, because I like Stewart Lee.
posted by flabdablet at 8:35 PM on February 27, 2023 [5 favorites]
This person isn’t taking much a risk compared to Rowling or Adams.
Best Sellers Rank: #121,493 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#730 in Action & Adventure Fantasy (Kindle Store)
#838 in Coming of Age Fantasy eBooks
#1,010 in Magical Realism
Rowling—1st Harry Potter book
Best Sellers Rank: #45 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#1 in Fantasy (Kindle Store)
#1 in Children's Humorous Literature
#1 in Children's Fantasy & Magic Adventure
posted by Ideefixe at 9:21 PM on February 27, 2023
Best Sellers Rank: #121,493 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#730 in Action & Adventure Fantasy (Kindle Store)
#838 in Coming of Age Fantasy eBooks
#1,010 in Magical Realism
Rowling—1st Harry Potter book
Best Sellers Rank: #45 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#1 in Fantasy (Kindle Store)
#1 in Children's Humorous Literature
#1 in Children's Fantasy & Magic Adventure
posted by Ideefixe at 9:21 PM on February 27, 2023
This person isn’t taking much a risk compared to Rowling or Adams.
The only risk Rowling has taken is vicariously risking the lives of trans people.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:32 PM on February 27, 2023 [23 favorites]
The only risk Rowling has taken is vicariously risking the lives of trans people.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:32 PM on February 27, 2023 [23 favorites]
This person isn’t taking much a risk compared to Rowling or Adams.
Exactly what Amazon dot com sales rank do you need before you can call a bigot a bigot? Does it vary by category? Does it depend on the specific type of bigotry? How did we know who had enough moral authority to call out hatred before we knew who was selling the most Children's Fantasy & Magic Adventure books on an electronic commerce website?
These are all deadly serious questions; I had no idea that this limit existed but you are posting it as a fait accompli; obviously we have no right to evaluate the political essay writing of someone who is also merely #838 in Coming Of Age Ebooks in any other way, such as tone or content or our moral compass. But at what point must we credulously accept them? #83 in Coming Of Age? #8 in Coming Of Age?
posted by Superilla at 10:15 PM on February 27, 2023 [24 favorites]
Exactly what Amazon dot com sales rank do you need before you can call a bigot a bigot? Does it vary by category? Does it depend on the specific type of bigotry? How did we know who had enough moral authority to call out hatred before we knew who was selling the most Children's Fantasy & Magic Adventure books on an electronic commerce website?
These are all deadly serious questions; I had no idea that this limit existed but you are posting it as a fait accompli; obviously we have no right to evaluate the political essay writing of someone who is also merely #838 in Coming Of Age Ebooks in any other way, such as tone or content or our moral compass. But at what point must we credulously accept them? #83 in Coming Of Age? #8 in Coming Of Age?
posted by Superilla at 10:15 PM on February 27, 2023 [24 favorites]
obviously we have no right to evaluate the political essay writing of someone who is also merely #838 in Coming Of Age Ebooks
I'ma do it anyway.
posted by flabdablet at 1:43 AM on February 28, 2023 [27 favorites]
I'ma do it anyway.
Maybe I should talk about the article. You know the one: it was earlier this month. The one that informed us that it’s become so hard to be a conservative Christian right now, because people say such awful things about them, calling them “fascist” because of their beliefs, and this is (or so the article claims) the reason conservative Christians have become so entrenched and reactionary and fascist.⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
The simple idea is that conservative Christians in America are just following their consciences, and they resent the way people blame them for so many awful things that result, which carries the implicit suggestion that it is precisely this unfair assignment of blame that might cause conservative Christians to want to do even more awful things in the future, if it isn’t stopped.
You might think of it as less a suggestion and more a threat.
It’s not enough for them to be allowed to live according to their consciences.
It’s not even enough to pass laws forcing the rest of us to do so, too.
They demand to be thought of as blameless while doing so.
And, they suggest, if we don’t comply and think of them as blameless, this will justify more suffering. So, if we suffer, it is implied, it is only because we haven’t taken a deferential enough posture toward them and their declared intentions.
If you missed the article last week, don’t worry. Another one will be along soon. They come every few days, like waves, like the tide, absolving the people causing suffering for all the suffering they’ve caused, forgiving themselves on behalf of the grieving and the injured and the frightened and the dead, scolding the rest of us for not joining them in declaring themselves righteous and blameless and good.
And we might wonder why they seem to need to be held blameless, if they truly are being guided by their consciences.
But we were talking about sabotage and repair.
posted by flabdablet at 1:43 AM on February 28, 2023 [27 favorites]
There is a kind of doublethink to racism that Moxon gets at with "industructable skepticism" yeah. Where when you examine what you think, and why you think it, unless you're totally in these supremacist echo chambers there's an uncomfortableness, your beliefs don't match reality but you HAVE to think them anyway. Why do you have to think them? Once you realize it's the supremacy it's freeing actually, you can escape from that kind of thinking that imposes conclusions on everything you see before you've even really seen or considered it. At least that's what I remember from the moment when I realized how distorted my thinking was.
posted by subdee at 2:38 AM on February 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by subdee at 2:38 AM on February 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
your beliefs don't match reality but you HAVE to think them anyway.
Yup, it's called faith and if you don't have it you aren't one-of-us--one-of-us--one-of-us.
I'm an apatheist these days, but I admit from time to time I worry that the only difference between 'Jehovah' and 'Lucifer' is that the latter lost the coin toss. ;->
(or maybe he won? ;-> ;->)
posted by zaixfeep at 2:49 AM on February 28, 2023
Yup, it's called faith and if you don't have it you aren't one-of-us--one-of-us--one-of-us.
I'm an apatheist these days, but I admit from time to time I worry that the only difference between 'Jehovah' and 'Lucifer' is that the latter lost the coin toss. ;->
(or maybe he won? ;-> ;->)
posted by zaixfeep at 2:49 AM on February 28, 2023
it's called faith
Personifying the All in order to enable the extraction of the rents that would thereby fall due to His mediators and middlemen really was a breathtakingly skilful bit of idolatry.
posted by flabdablet at 3:01 AM on February 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
Personifying the All in order to enable the extraction of the rents that would thereby fall due to His mediators and middlemen really was a breathtakingly skilful bit of idolatry.
posted by flabdablet at 3:01 AM on February 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
The only risk Rowling has taken is vicariously risking the lives of trans people.
I dunno. Based on this Shaun video, Rowling is keeping company that suggests a willingness to risk a much wider range of people. She apparently has a lot of hate to share.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:58 AM on February 28, 2023 [8 favorites]
I dunno. Based on this Shaun video, Rowling is keeping company that suggests a willingness to risk a much wider range of people. She apparently has a lot of hate to share.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:58 AM on February 28, 2023 [8 favorites]
Pro tip: If anyone ever hits you with "Is it okay to be white?", the correct reply is: "Okay? It's fucking awesome!"
posted by Brachinus at 7:00 AM on February 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Brachinus at 7:00 AM on February 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
This person isn’t taking much a risk compared to Rowling or Adams.
I'm genuinely confused trying to understand whatever point it is you think you're making here.
posted by Ipsifendus at 7:15 AM on February 28, 2023 [8 favorites]
I'm genuinely confused trying to understand whatever point it is you think you're making here.
posted by Ipsifendus at 7:15 AM on February 28, 2023 [8 favorites]
Pro tip: If anyone ever hits you with "Is it okay to be white?", the correct reply is: "Okay? It's fucking awesome!"
It's okay to be white
It's not easy being green
It's hip to be square
It's okay to not be okay
It's better with ketchup
It's a great day for America
It's a hard day's night and I've been working like a dog
It's raining men
It's-a me Mario
It's Saturday Night Live
It's the Hair Bear Bunch
It's a good day (for a Klingon) to die
It's a fine day, people open windows / They leave the houses, just for a short while
It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter
It's the Arts
It's the Mind
It's the Mind
It's the Mind (sorry got caught up in deja vu)
It's... (Bong!)
It's Make A Wish
posted by zaixfeep at 7:38 AM on February 28, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's okay to be white
It's not easy being green
It's hip to be square
It's okay to not be okay
It's better with ketchup
It's a great day for America
It's a hard day's night and I've been working like a dog
It's raining men
It's-a me Mario
It's Saturday Night Live
It's the Hair Bear Bunch
It's a good day (for a Klingon) to die
It's a fine day, people open windows / They leave the houses, just for a short while
It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter
It's the Arts
It's the Mind
It's the Mind
It's the Mind (sorry got caught up in deja vu)
It's... (Bong!)
It's Make A Wish
posted by zaixfeep at 7:38 AM on February 28, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's not easy being green
It's hip to be square
It's okay to not be okay
It's better with ketchup
It's Howdy Doody Time!
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:51 AM on February 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's hip to be square
It's okay to not be okay
It's better with ketchup
It's Howdy Doody Time!
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:51 AM on February 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's Howdy Doody Time!
Yep, ya got me, and there are more:
It's funny you should say that, it's a most peculiar thing
It's the Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour
It's the Hudson Brothers Razzle Dazzle Show
It's a Beautiful Day At Carnegie Hall
It's a Fact!
It's errmm... it's green...
It's just a show, I should really just relax
...
It's me, being hauled away by the mods. Bye-eee!
posted by zaixfeep at 8:00 AM on February 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yep, ya got me, and there are more:
It's funny you should say that, it's a most peculiar thing
It's the Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour
It's the Hudson Brothers Razzle Dazzle Show
It's a Beautiful Day At Carnegie Hall
It's a Fact!
It's errmm... it's green...
It's just a show, I should really just relax
...
It's me, being hauled away by the mods. Bye-eee!
posted by zaixfeep at 8:00 AM on February 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
“An Overlooked Detail in the Scott Adams and Dilbert Story,” Parker Molloy, The Present Age, 28 February 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 8:14 AM on February 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 8:14 AM on February 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
... it's a trap! a large hook extends and pulls zaixfeep out, not to be seen in this discussion again
posted by zaixfeep at 8:28 AM on February 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by zaixfeep at 8:28 AM on February 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
Idk I just tried to shun my mother for her homophobia and for hitting me when I said I didn’t feel loved as a child and she responded with this verse so I don’t know if we’re getting out of this one alive folks.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turnposted by brook horse at 8:41 AM on February 28, 2023 [17 favorites]
a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.” - Matthew 10:34-39
Wow brook horse, that sucks. Also, just as an aside, none of us is getting out of this alive. Let’s try to enjoy what we can when we can, so maybe consider shunning your mom at a greater distance so she cannot add insult to injury by hitting you. Fuck that’s cold. I am so sorry you are dealing with this.
posted by Bella Donna at 8:52 AM on February 28, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 8:52 AM on February 28, 2023 [12 favorites]
brook horse, I am so, so sorry. Especially since I remember comments you've written about your childhood, which ... God.
"All right, I'll go to hell."
posted by Countess Elena at 8:53 AM on February 28, 2023 [12 favorites]
"All right, I'll go to hell."
posted by Countess Elena at 8:53 AM on February 28, 2023 [12 favorites]
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be the members of his own household.
"Let's you and him fight", Bible edition.
It's a fucking disgusting attitude. I'm sorry you had that in your life, brook horse, and I hope you find your way to freedom from it.
Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
Ah yes. The old narcissene creed.
posted by flabdablet at 9:11 AM on February 28, 2023 [11 favorites]
"Let's you and him fight", Bible edition.
It's a fucking disgusting attitude. I'm sorry you had that in your life, brook horse, and I hope you find your way to freedom from it.
Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
Ah yes. The old narcissene creed.
posted by flabdablet at 9:11 AM on February 28, 2023 [11 favorites]
Thanks all, didn’t mean to trauma dump in this thread but that set of verses just made me realize why none of this ever seems to work. If that’s your attitude then there’s really no possible way to get through because every consequence of your action is taken as proof of what a valiant soldier for god you are. The more you people shun you for your beliefs, the more you know you must be right.
I am definitely considering going straight no contact though, wish I could do so for the rest of them in government. (Also for context as I realize the wording is unclear, the hitting happened when I was living with her, luckily hasn’t been the case for ten years!)
posted by brook horse at 9:49 AM on February 28, 2023 [14 favorites]
I am definitely considering going straight no contact though, wish I could do so for the rest of them in government. (Also for context as I realize the wording is unclear, the hitting happened when I was living with her, luckily hasn’t been the case for ten years!)
posted by brook horse at 9:49 AM on February 28, 2023 [14 favorites]
This person isn’t taking much a risk compared to Rowling or Adams.
David is always taking a very big risk when he’s up against Goliath, especially in the age of social media. All Goliath has to do is tweet/podcast/cry on TV that David said something mean about him; the Goliath stans will form an angry mob.
“Rich person might make less money because they’re exposed as a hatemonger” is never a riskier predicament than “apologists for a hatemonger have time on their hands.”
posted by armeowda at 9:53 AM on February 28, 2023 [10 favorites]
David is always taking a very big risk when he’s up against Goliath, especially in the age of social media. All Goliath has to do is tweet/podcast/cry on TV that David said something mean about him; the Goliath stans will form an angry mob.
“Rich person might make less money because they’re exposed as a hatemonger” is never a riskier predicament than “apologists for a hatemonger have time on their hands.”
posted by armeowda at 9:53 AM on February 28, 2023 [10 favorites]
That Parker Molloy piece is helpful. It's truly a ridiculous poll question based around a phrase that was literally workshopped by racist trolls to be ambiguous in meaning. I don't see how you could find any meaningful information in how people respond to it.
Also, precisely because of right wing troll culture, it's a disturbing question to call people and ask them! I'm sure some of the respondents were worried it was a James O'Keefe-style sting where their answer would be recorded and used against them.
posted by smelendez at 10:37 AM on February 28, 2023 [6 favorites]
Also, precisely because of right wing troll culture, it's a disturbing question to call people and ask them! I'm sure some of the respondents were worried it was a James O'Keefe-style sting where their answer would be recorded and used against them.
posted by smelendez at 10:37 AM on February 28, 2023 [6 favorites]
Pro tip: If anyone ever hits you with "Is it okay to be white?", the correct reply is: "Okay? It's fucking awesome!"
I have responded with, "It's not *not* okay to be white, but Christ Almighty is it ever embarrassing sometimes."
posted by orange swan at 11:28 AM on February 28, 2023 [22 favorites]
I have responded with, "It's not *not* okay to be white, but Christ Almighty is it ever embarrassing sometimes."
posted by orange swan at 11:28 AM on February 28, 2023 [22 favorites]
I would think that “Are you asking a genuine question or are you employing a white supremacist dog whistle?” would be a more to-the-point response?
posted by eviemath at 3:10 PM on February 28, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 3:10 PM on February 28, 2023 [7 favorites]
that set of verses just made me realize why none of this ever seems to work.
Of course, the problem is that almost everyone quotes selective verses without paying attention to the whole. Each of the Gospels was written for a different audience, and you have to read them in the context of their time, which a lot of Christian’s don’t want to do because it’s hard. Because the complete message is a lot more challenging than they are willing to accept. And I say this as someone who abandoned the religion because I could not stand Christians.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:42 PM on February 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
Of course, the problem is that almost everyone quotes selective verses without paying attention to the whole. Each of the Gospels was written for a different audience, and you have to read them in the context of their time, which a lot of Christian’s don’t want to do because it’s hard. Because the complete message is a lot more challenging than they are willing to accept. And I say this as someone who abandoned the religion because I could not stand Christians.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:42 PM on February 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
that set of verses just made me realize why none of this ever seems to work.
I want to ask here - what do you mean by "work"? Because it seems that you mean that you're unable to get your mother to change, and yeah - you're not going to change someone who is unwilling and unready to change. But to me, this feels like we're setting ourselves up for failure by choosing a goal that we can't really affect, which is why I've always seen the "redemption narrative" as being incredibly problematic at best. Instead, I think our goal in terms of results should be harm reduction - while I would like to see these people realize the damage they do and change their ways, my primary goal is to stop the harms they do to others.
A while back, I had an anti-carceral advocate tell me that we can't achieve a just society by "throwing away" people, and at the time I didn't have a response. Having thought on it now, my response is "but it's the only thing that has ever worked." Because the reality is that while focusing on trying to get people to change their minds sounds noble, the reality is that many aren't willing to, and they're still causing harm to their victims. Worse, the focus on the abuser often times compromises these actions as the harms they do are too often forgotten in the name of getting them to change. Finally, the "throwing away" phrasing I feel removes agency and accountability from abusers and argues that there is an obligation on the abused to work with those who harmed them.
As I've said in other threads, restorative justice is a noble ideal, but it needs to start with contrition. And without that, we need to instead focus on harm reduction and accountability for abuse - which is why shunning does have value.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:59 PM on February 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
I want to ask here - what do you mean by "work"? Because it seems that you mean that you're unable to get your mother to change, and yeah - you're not going to change someone who is unwilling and unready to change. But to me, this feels like we're setting ourselves up for failure by choosing a goal that we can't really affect, which is why I've always seen the "redemption narrative" as being incredibly problematic at best. Instead, I think our goal in terms of results should be harm reduction - while I would like to see these people realize the damage they do and change their ways, my primary goal is to stop the harms they do to others.
A while back, I had an anti-carceral advocate tell me that we can't achieve a just society by "throwing away" people, and at the time I didn't have a response. Having thought on it now, my response is "but it's the only thing that has ever worked." Because the reality is that while focusing on trying to get people to change their minds sounds noble, the reality is that many aren't willing to, and they're still causing harm to their victims. Worse, the focus on the abuser often times compromises these actions as the harms they do are too often forgotten in the name of getting them to change. Finally, the "throwing away" phrasing I feel removes agency and accountability from abusers and argues that there is an obligation on the abused to work with those who harmed them.
As I've said in other threads, restorative justice is a noble ideal, but it needs to start with contrition. And without that, we need to instead focus on harm reduction and accountability for abuse - which is why shunning does have value.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:59 PM on February 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
I think modern psychologists would argue that shunning harms the shunner and just adds to our traumas. A competent CBT therapist would not encourage their client to use shunning as a tactic, and would guide them toward other approaches and ideas that may "work".
As much as shunning is a form of prosocial behavior, the problem is that it hurts the person (me) to use it. Shunning could be good for society for similar reasons that protests are good for social change. But the act of shunning bears an individual cost, a calculus of risks and benefits of such strong decision to be made, and therein lies the contradiction between what's good for the individual and what's good societally.
The strongest argument against shunning is that it is not a structural response to injustice. It's an atomized and individualistic response to a social problem.
posted by polymodus at 11:33 PM on February 28, 2023
As much as shunning is a form of prosocial behavior, the problem is that it hurts the person (me) to use it. Shunning could be good for society for similar reasons that protests are good for social change. But the act of shunning bears an individual cost, a calculus of risks and benefits of such strong decision to be made, and therein lies the contradiction between what's good for the individual and what's good societally.
The strongest argument against shunning is that it is not a structural response to injustice. It's an atomized and individualistic response to a social problem.
posted by polymodus at 11:33 PM on February 28, 2023
Okay but bringing it back to the original example, shunning Scott Adams does not hurt the shunner, in fact quite the opposite.
posted by aubilenon at 11:35 PM on February 28, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by aubilenon at 11:35 PM on February 28, 2023 [9 favorites]
The title of the article is The Case for Shunning, not The Case for Shunning Scott Adams.
brook horse talked about their recent experience with their mother. As an Asian American and also an LGBT person, I recently called out my own aunts for being conservative.
So maybe you might want to take a step back rather than basically ignoring what I wrote.
posted by polymodus at 11:39 PM on February 28, 2023
brook horse talked about their recent experience with their mother. As an Asian American and also an LGBT person, I recently called out my own aunts for being conservative.
So maybe you might want to take a step back rather than basically ignoring what I wrote.
posted by polymodus at 11:39 PM on February 28, 2023
I think modern psychologists would argue that shunning harms the shunner and just adds to our traumas.
Here's the thing - we live in a society that takes social bonds seriously (and familial bonds in particular), to the point that victims of abuse routinely are pressured to stay in social contact with their abuser even when doing so causes harm. Psychology not only exists in this context, but routinely serves as its enforcer. I would not be surprised that psychologists would argue this, given that this is The Position Of Society In General - what I don't find convincing is the evidence given for it, especially given what shunning is - the decision to sever social ties to another entity based on their conduct.
That's not to say that shunning cannot be unhealthy or unjustified - as with any action we take, shunning can be unwarranted, unjustified, or be done in an unhealthy way. But there is a wide difference between "this particular act of shunning is unhealthy" and "the act of shunning is unhealthy." And given that we live in a culture that routinely pushes abusers on victims because it puts the preservation of social ties over the well being of people (see also: the fact that it took until 2023 for Scott Adams to face actual social consequence for his bigoted rhetoric), I question the claims that shunning would be traumatic.
(I found this piece to be a good rebuttal to the argument that shunning harms the shunner, as it points out that a lot of the problems that shunners face are more societal in nature.)
A competent CBT therapist would not encourage their client to use shunning as a tactic, and would guide them toward other approaches and ideas that may "work".
Therapists routinely recommend shunning as a personal strategy - they just don't call it that. Remember, all shunning turns out to be is severing social ties, and therapists routinely advise doing such - not only in cases of abuse, but even in cases where maintaining a particular social tie is causing genuine harm, as a common strategy for dealing with a romantic breakup is breaking ties with one's ex. Again, it's not the only strategy that a therapist would use, but it definitely is one in use, especially in cases where maintaining the social tie is proving harmful to the person in question.
But the act of shunning bears an individual cost, a calculus of risks and benefits of such strong decision to be made, and therein lies the contradiction between what's good for the individual and what's good societally.
But that's true of any action one takes - shunning is not unique in that regard. Which, again, comes back to the point that shunning is somehow unique in this regard doesn't really hold up.
The strongest argument against shunning is that it is not a structural response to injustice. It's an atomized and individualistic response to a social problem.
At the individual level, perhaps - though there can be symbolic power in a person finally saying "Enough." But it can be coordinated - and that coordinated action can be a structural response, a community saying that something will not be tolerated. Of course, this can also be used to further injustice as well - shunning is in of itself a value-neutral act. What defines the morality of the act is the intent driving it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:13 AM on March 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
Here's the thing - we live in a society that takes social bonds seriously (and familial bonds in particular), to the point that victims of abuse routinely are pressured to stay in social contact with their abuser even when doing so causes harm. Psychology not only exists in this context, but routinely serves as its enforcer. I would not be surprised that psychologists would argue this, given that this is The Position Of Society In General - what I don't find convincing is the evidence given for it, especially given what shunning is - the decision to sever social ties to another entity based on their conduct.
That's not to say that shunning cannot be unhealthy or unjustified - as with any action we take, shunning can be unwarranted, unjustified, or be done in an unhealthy way. But there is a wide difference between "this particular act of shunning is unhealthy" and "the act of shunning is unhealthy." And given that we live in a culture that routinely pushes abusers on victims because it puts the preservation of social ties over the well being of people (see also: the fact that it took until 2023 for Scott Adams to face actual social consequence for his bigoted rhetoric), I question the claims that shunning would be traumatic.
(I found this piece to be a good rebuttal to the argument that shunning harms the shunner, as it points out that a lot of the problems that shunners face are more societal in nature.)
A competent CBT therapist would not encourage their client to use shunning as a tactic, and would guide them toward other approaches and ideas that may "work".
Therapists routinely recommend shunning as a personal strategy - they just don't call it that. Remember, all shunning turns out to be is severing social ties, and therapists routinely advise doing such - not only in cases of abuse, but even in cases where maintaining a particular social tie is causing genuine harm, as a common strategy for dealing with a romantic breakup is breaking ties with one's ex. Again, it's not the only strategy that a therapist would use, but it definitely is one in use, especially in cases where maintaining the social tie is proving harmful to the person in question.
But the act of shunning bears an individual cost, a calculus of risks and benefits of such strong decision to be made, and therein lies the contradiction between what's good for the individual and what's good societally.
But that's true of any action one takes - shunning is not unique in that regard. Which, again, comes back to the point that shunning is somehow unique in this regard doesn't really hold up.
The strongest argument against shunning is that it is not a structural response to injustice. It's an atomized and individualistic response to a social problem.
At the individual level, perhaps - though there can be symbolic power in a person finally saying "Enough." But it can be coordinated - and that coordinated action can be a structural response, a community saying that something will not be tolerated. Of course, this can also be used to further injustice as well - shunning is in of itself a value-neutral act. What defines the morality of the act is the intent driving it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:13 AM on March 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
« Older Legitimate | Freeze Your Kids with This New Technology Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Ipsifendus at 8:10 AM on February 27, 2023 [17 favorites]