The fragility of reputation
May 11, 2010 9:32 AM Subscribe
Surviving the Age of Humiliation. Jeffrey Zaslow: "It's no longer just celebrities and business executives who need to think about aggressive reputation-protection and face-saving techniques."
Kind of paranoid for most ordinary people.
This. It also seems pretty egotistical to me.
posted by zarq at 9:49 AM on May 11, 2010
This. It also seems pretty egotistical to me.
posted by zarq at 9:49 AM on May 11, 2010
The examples provided are easy to address. Don't hype a comeback event when you're not ready. Be careful when you pose in compromising situations (or go to Walmart wearing anything of questionable taste). It's sad but true, the internet is not just for you and your friends. Staying off of social networks isn't enough, as anyone can post your picture and tag you on Facebook, if no other site. Don't believe that anything online will stay private, or will be forgotten. You can no longer move out of town and start a new life, if the slander has been posted online.
I really hope the end clip never comes true:
posted by filthy light thief at 9:50 AM on May 11, 2010
I really hope the end clip never comes true:
There hasn't yet been a landmark legal case involving a person whose reputation was ruined over the Internet, says Eric Dezenhall, a crisis consultant in Washington, D.C. "But one of these days, someone will launch a comprehensive lawsuit, and a jury will say that an Internet provider like Google is liable," he predicts. "Sooner or later, an Internet provider will pay a massive price" for spreading malicious gossip.This guy's whole business is responding to "intense scrutiny, risk or competition", so I'd consider his view with a dose of salt. If internet providers or search engines are found at fault for facilitating the "spread of malicious gossip," then there will be some strict limits placed on what people can and cannot do on "upstanding sites," leaving the rumormills to move to other hosts and servers with fewer scruples.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:50 AM on May 11, 2010
Humiliation is one of those emotions that is completely self-imposed -- people will rag on you if it is in their own self-interest to do so -- and for some people, a flash of ridicule and public scorn is enough to stop them dead in their tracks. For other people, they can take anything and turn it into a lucrative career or make it an advantage. People take themselves way too seriously forgetting it's not the falling down that gets you, but the willful decision to stay down.
But really, how many times will public rebuke have any effect before people become immune, then accepting of other people's real or imagined weirdness? I'd still rather be Samantha Stephens than Gladys Kravitz any day (okay, I'd rather be Serena, but I digress)...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 9:51 AM on May 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
But really, how many times will public rebuke have any effect before people become immune, then accepting of other people's real or imagined weirdness? I'd still rather be Samantha Stephens than Gladys Kravitz any day (okay, I'd rather be Serena, but I digress)...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 9:51 AM on May 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
Our society has taken a turn for the truly truly ugly. This is how I feel about sites like this and this. I mean, really, who doesn't have a bitter or jealous ex in their past? Before, all they could do is snark about you to their friends. Now they can tarnish your name in front of the entire world, and you basically have no recourse. Doesn't matter if they're lying or whatever, it's out there, and google picks it up. Bunch of trash.
(disclaimer : no, I have never been featured on either site.)
posted by Sloop John B at 9:51 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
(disclaimer : no, I have never been featured on either site.)
posted by Sloop John B at 9:51 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Google yourself at least once a week"
I find that Googling myself helps me get back to sleep when I've woken up in the middle of the night.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:52 AM on May 11, 2010 [14 favorites]
I find that Googling myself helps me get back to sleep when I've woken up in the middle of the night.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:52 AM on May 11, 2010 [14 favorites]
"Google yourself at least once a week," advises Richard Levick, who heads a strategic communications firm in Washington, D.C. "You need to track what's being said about you" on blogs, message boards and social-networking websites.
Note to self: Do not hire "strategic communications firm" that's never heard of google alerts.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 9:53 AM on May 11, 2010 [31 favorites]
Note to self: Do not hire "strategic communications firm" that's never heard of google alerts.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 9:53 AM on May 11, 2010 [31 favorites]
I defer to the Lady
I think it's best to defer to her in all things.
posted by blucevalo at 9:53 AM on May 11, 2010
I think it's best to defer to her in all things.
posted by blucevalo at 9:53 AM on May 11, 2010
If people really are gossiping about you, online or off, it's really best not to seek it out and dig into it. Everything you make it do to go away will probably be counter-productive. The best solution is to not know what people are saying about you behind your back, and if you accidentally find out, to not care.
posted by echo target at 9:59 AM on May 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by echo target at 9:59 AM on May 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
Reputation policing is hard work. An acquaintance of a friend posted a mildly salacious work of said friend's under her real name, rather than her preferred alias. The acquaintance said, "Oh, no, I won't use your real name" but went ahead and did it anyway. People rarely remember their promises, much less carry through with them. Well, various podcast feeders picked it up and things cycled around and suddenly the first hit for her name on Google was this.
And it spread, fast. Hits for this material just kept growing and growing.
Took me months to clean it all up, mostly consisting of basic web sleuthing, polite emails, and the occasional little white lie. Rows in databases didn't get updated and it would eventually pop up again. Eventually, all gone. Took a while, though. Complete pain.
Do the ego search often, on multiple search engines. Switch up your search terms. If you see something you don't want up, do not hesitate. Do ask politely — you can always pull out the big stick later.
posted by adipocere at 10:00 AM on May 11, 2010
And it spread, fast. Hits for this material just kept growing and growing.
Took me months to clean it all up, mostly consisting of basic web sleuthing, polite emails, and the occasional little white lie. Rows in databases didn't get updated and it would eventually pop up again. Eventually, all gone. Took a while, though. Complete pain.
Do the ego search often, on multiple search engines. Switch up your search terms. If you see something you don't want up, do not hesitate. Do ask politely — you can always pull out the big stick later.
posted by adipocere at 10:00 AM on May 11, 2010
I'd still rather be Samantha Stephens than Gladys Kravitz any day (okay, I'd rather be Serena, but I digress)...
Me too, especially since Samantha could turn a vicious blogger into a pile of dust with a twitch of her nose.
posted by blucevalo at 10:02 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Me too, especially since Samantha could turn a vicious blogger into a pile of dust with a twitch of her nose.
posted by blucevalo at 10:02 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is another of those "go crazy about minuscule downside risk" things, isn't it?
A small handful of people have been treated really poorly by online gossip, therefore all billion of us have to learn these lessons about managing our reputations.
I actually think the common advice of "never talk to the police" is like this too. Of course, IF you want to minimize your risk of being successfully prosecuted for something, you should clam up immediately -- good advice. But many people will encounter the police with no serious risk of being prosecuted for anything, and they might be hurting themselves and others by refusing to talk. [disclaimer about very real racial dimension that complicates the problem; set that aside]
posted by grobstein at 10:13 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
A small handful of people have been treated really poorly by online gossip, therefore all billion of us have to learn these lessons about managing our reputations.
I actually think the common advice of "never talk to the police" is like this too. Of course, IF you want to minimize your risk of being successfully prosecuted for something, you should clam up immediately -- good advice. But many people will encounter the police with no serious risk of being prosecuted for anything, and they might be hurting themselves and others by refusing to talk. [disclaimer about very real racial dimension that complicates the problem; set that aside]
posted by grobstein at 10:13 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is where having an extremely common name and always using a handle not connected to that name comes in handy. A Google search for my name brings up basically no information about me at all, even if you include other details to try to narrow it down.
posted by burnmp3s at 10:19 AM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by burnmp3s at 10:19 AM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
A small handful of people have been treated really poorly by online gossip, therefore all billion of us have to learn these lessons about managing our reputations.
I would bet you anything that far more than a small handful of people have been turned down for jobs, apartments, loans, etc. based on Google results.
posted by enn at 10:19 AM on May 11, 2010
I would bet you anything that far more than a small handful of people have been turned down for jobs, apartments, loans, etc. based on Google results.
posted by enn at 10:19 AM on May 11, 2010
Lucky for me there are a few famous people with at least 2 of my 3 names (first, middle, last), so they always appear way head of me on google searches.
posted by Saxon Kane at 10:22 AM on May 11, 2010
posted by Saxon Kane at 10:22 AM on May 11, 2010
Google yourself at least once a week
In a cosmic coincidence, I have the same name as a high-placed executive in a massive, multi-national charity organization.
Either everyone thinks I'm a saint ...
... or that guy is in huge fucking trouble ... when I finally snap and show up to work with several firearms.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:25 AM on May 11, 2010
In a cosmic coincidence, I have the same name as a high-placed executive in a massive, multi-national charity organization.
Either everyone thinks I'm a saint ...
... or that guy is in huge fucking trouble ... when I finally snap and show up to work with several firearms.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:25 AM on May 11, 2010
Sometimes I'm really glad I share a name with a shitty author. Googling my real name will turn up results about HOW TO MAKE MONEY FAST!
posted by Kirk Grim at 10:26 AM on May 11, 2010
posted by Kirk Grim at 10:26 AM on May 11, 2010
So the best protection against online gossip is to name your children Andy Warhol or Shakespeare or One Weird Old Trick?
posted by The Whelk at 10:34 AM on May 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 10:34 AM on May 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
"But one of these days, someone will launch a comprehensive lawsuit, and a jury will say that an Internet provider like Google is liable,"
"Hi! My name is Jenny! When Tommy Tutone recorded a song about me that suggested anyone could call me just because he found my phone number on a bathroom wall, I was so mad about the implications of that that I decided to sue. Not Tommy, even though he was the one who sang it, but bathroom walls. Lucky for me, I had a jury that agreed that bathroom walls had too long been manufactured in such a way that people could write malicious things on them. I won six million dollars (minus lawyer fees) and now we all have to shit outside."
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2010 [16 favorites]
"Hi! My name is Jenny! When Tommy Tutone recorded a song about me that suggested anyone could call me just because he found my phone number on a bathroom wall, I was so mad about the implications of that that I decided to sue. Not Tommy, even though he was the one who sang it, but bathroom walls. Lucky for me, I had a jury that agreed that bathroom walls had too long been manufactured in such a way that people could write malicious things on them. I won six million dollars (minus lawyer fees) and now we all have to shit outside."
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2010 [16 favorites]
Let me guess: these guys are selling something...?
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2010
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 10:38 AM on May 11, 2010
Heh, I posted a little rant on this subject on that deleted post about the woman who was fired from a Texas non-profit for blogging about sex. Here's a version with fewer swear-words in it.
When it comes to this issue, certain people act like the whole issue of online embarassment, blackmail and/or being fired because of embarassing dox would go away if people would be careful with their private information, and/or "just not do" the things that they're being embarassed/blackmailed/fired for.
This is a specious and dangerous attitude, because in fact it's impossible to live a non-embarassing life that's worth a damn. Firstly because no model of human behaviour vanilla and normal enough for a society to agree on it in is broad enough to accomodate the realities of even the most whitebread of people. Everyone shits and everyone's shit stinks. This is especially true when the only way to completely avoid embrassment is to avoid offending sensibilities that contradict each other. It's impossible.
Secondly, all that freaky, embarassing, strange, awkward, ridiculous, pretentious, kinky, scary, disgusting, freaky shit that qualifies people to be ridiculed is an inextricable part of human nature as a whole, always there no matter what the standards of the day say about whether they can/should exist. Such a disparity is inevitably harmful just in itself: freaks exist no matter how glorious or debased society is, and stigmatising them is pointlessly cruel. It's doubly so because a major, or even total portion of the good, the interesting, the novel, the progressive things that humans do stems directly or indirectly from things that are or have been unacceptable and grounds for embarassment and ridicule. Freaks are essential for various things. That's not to say that freakery that is (or seems) merely self-indulgent is less valid or defensible.
So saying people should avoid embarassment by "just not doing it" is an offensive and harmful suggestion. Blaming them for not sealing an unsealable bottle is just as wrong-headed. On the other hand it's hard to blame a boss for firing someone, or a member of the public for participating in the ridicule, when there's no solid reason not to do so at the moment. So, what needs to happen? There needs to be a reason for people and companies to act properly. If companies fire someone based on over-reaching enquiries, and the assumption that anyone will give a shit if someone on their payroll is anything less than vanilla, then they should be reprimanded or punished according to your preferred method (badmouthing them, writing a reasonable letter, writing an angry letter, boycott, facebook group, alerting politicians, whatever...). It may seem a stretch that you can make a difference, but corporate action can and does change if there's enough weight of feeling being levelled against them, either directly or indirectly through political action.
Likewise if someone acts like an asshole and a bully, perpetuating this nonsense, call them out on it. That's a fight that can never be won, perhaps, but over time the battle-lines can at least be redrawn. And if you find yourself defending someone you find ridiculous, disgusting, and generally freaky and you don't like it, consider that doing distasteful stuff like that is sometimes the responsibility of those who want to make things better and fairer for everyone, for themselves, and for the people who will come after us, and that history's watching. The sewer-cover's been blown off, and we have to channel the torrent of exposed human freakiness with our bare hands until we all find a way to deal with its existence.
posted by Drexen at 10:39 AM on May 11, 2010 [14 favorites]
When it comes to this issue, certain people act like the whole issue of online embarassment, blackmail and/or being fired because of embarassing dox would go away if people would be careful with their private information, and/or "just not do" the things that they're being embarassed/blackmailed/fired for.
This is a specious and dangerous attitude, because in fact it's impossible to live a non-embarassing life that's worth a damn. Firstly because no model of human behaviour vanilla and normal enough for a society to agree on it in is broad enough to accomodate the realities of even the most whitebread of people. Everyone shits and everyone's shit stinks. This is especially true when the only way to completely avoid embrassment is to avoid offending sensibilities that contradict each other. It's impossible.
Secondly, all that freaky, embarassing, strange, awkward, ridiculous, pretentious, kinky, scary, disgusting, freaky shit that qualifies people to be ridiculed is an inextricable part of human nature as a whole, always there no matter what the standards of the day say about whether they can/should exist. Such a disparity is inevitably harmful just in itself: freaks exist no matter how glorious or debased society is, and stigmatising them is pointlessly cruel. It's doubly so because a major, or even total portion of the good, the interesting, the novel, the progressive things that humans do stems directly or indirectly from things that are or have been unacceptable and grounds for embarassment and ridicule. Freaks are essential for various things. That's not to say that freakery that is (or seems) merely self-indulgent is less valid or defensible.
So saying people should avoid embarassment by "just not doing it" is an offensive and harmful suggestion. Blaming them for not sealing an unsealable bottle is just as wrong-headed. On the other hand it's hard to blame a boss for firing someone, or a member of the public for participating in the ridicule, when there's no solid reason not to do so at the moment. So, what needs to happen? There needs to be a reason for people and companies to act properly. If companies fire someone based on over-reaching enquiries, and the assumption that anyone will give a shit if someone on their payroll is anything less than vanilla, then they should be reprimanded or punished according to your preferred method (badmouthing them, writing a reasonable letter, writing an angry letter, boycott, facebook group, alerting politicians, whatever...). It may seem a stretch that you can make a difference, but corporate action can and does change if there's enough weight of feeling being levelled against them, either directly or indirectly through political action.
Likewise if someone acts like an asshole and a bully, perpetuating this nonsense, call them out on it. That's a fight that can never be won, perhaps, but over time the battle-lines can at least be redrawn. And if you find yourself defending someone you find ridiculous, disgusting, and generally freaky and you don't like it, consider that doing distasteful stuff like that is sometimes the responsibility of those who want to make things better and fairer for everyone, for themselves, and for the people who will come after us, and that history's watching. The sewer-cover's been blown off, and we have to channel the torrent of exposed human freakiness with our bare hands until we all find a way to deal with its existence.
posted by Drexen at 10:39 AM on May 11, 2010 [14 favorites]
So the best protection against online gossip is to name your children Andy Warhol or Shakespeare or One Weird Old Trick?
Well, not exactly. See this one time I came home and there were these thugs waiting for me in my apartment, and it turns out they thought I was the *OTHER* guy with the same name who owed them money. Long story short, I wound up losing my favorite rug and I'm kinda bummed about it, but what are you gonna do?
posted by Kirk Grim at 10:43 AM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
Well, not exactly. See this one time I came home and there were these thugs waiting for me in my apartment, and it turns out they thought I was the *OTHER* guy with the same name who owed them money. Long story short, I wound up losing my favorite rug and I'm kinda bummed about it, but what are you gonna do?
posted by Kirk Grim at 10:43 AM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
I couldn't find a place to post a Youtube Doubler of an elephant shitting on the American flag, but it might be somewhat topical here:
Arlen Specter's reputation is crystal clear: Presidents love him!
posted by anthill at 10:48 AM on May 11, 2010
Arlen Specter's reputation is crystal clear: Presidents love him!
posted by anthill at 10:48 AM on May 11, 2010
"Google yourself at least once a week"
don't need to. i share my name with a serial murderer and rapist, close to me in age, whose exploits dominate the search results.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 10:49 AM on May 11, 2010
don't need to. i share my name with a serial murderer and rapist, close to me in age, whose exploits dominate the search results.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 10:49 AM on May 11, 2010
If companies fire someone based on over-reaching enquiries, and the assumption that anyone will give a shit if someone on their payroll is anything less than vanilla, then they should be reprimanded or punished according to your preferred method (badmouthing them, writing a reasonable letter, writing an angry letter, boycott, facebook group, alerting politicians, whatever...). It may seem a stretch that you can make a difference, but corporate action can and does change if there's enough weight of feeling being levelled against them, either directly or indirectly through political action.
Yes. A lot of people here like to act as though it's ridiculous to question practices like Googling employees, as though you "can't go back," but you know what, we generally frown as a society these days on employers who send detectives to inspect their employees' homes for lapses in moral hygiene as Henry Ford liked to do, and we are perfectly capable of deciding to frown on employers who use the contents of personal blogs to attack their employees if we can summon the will to do so.
posted by enn at 10:52 AM on May 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
Yes. A lot of people here like to act as though it's ridiculous to question practices like Googling employees, as though you "can't go back," but you know what, we generally frown as a society these days on employers who send detectives to inspect their employees' homes for lapses in moral hygiene as Henry Ford liked to do, and we are perfectly capable of deciding to frown on employers who use the contents of personal blogs to attack their employees if we can summon the will to do so.
posted by enn at 10:52 AM on May 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
don't need to. i share my name with a serial murderer and rapist, close to me in age, whose exploits dominate the search results.
That's gotta make for some awkward first dates.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:02 AM on May 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
That's gotta make for some awkward first dates.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:02 AM on May 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
It's none of my business what people think about me.
or...
what echo target said
posted by slickvaguely at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2010
or...
what echo target said
posted by slickvaguely at 11:09 AM on May 11, 2010
That's gotta make for some awkward first dates.
yeah, that and my husband.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 11:13 AM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
yeah, that and my husband.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 11:13 AM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
That's gotta make for some awkward first dates.
The first dates are probably better than waiting around for three hours hoping she'll show up for the second one.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:15 AM on May 11, 2010
The first dates are probably better than waiting around for three hours hoping she'll show up for the second one.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:15 AM on May 11, 2010
Add me to the list of folks who don't really have to worry about this. I share my name with a prolific, NYT best-selling non-fiction author. I'm buried on page 37 of the search results.
posted by brand-gnu at 11:19 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by brand-gnu at 11:19 AM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: We have to channel the torrent of exposed human freakiness with our bare hands.
posted by bitmage at 11:30 AM on May 11, 2010
posted by bitmage at 11:30 AM on May 11, 2010
I am very, very Googlable. It's almost tragic.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:31 AM on May 11, 2010
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:31 AM on May 11, 2010
I am very, very Googlable. It's almost tragic.
considering all the pope should feel guilty for, it's not surprising.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 11:37 AM on May 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
considering all the pope should feel guilty for, it's not surprising.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 11:37 AM on May 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
This article reminds me of a question I have from time to time. I haven't been able to come up with a convincing answer myself, so maybe you all have some thoughts:
Given the massive digital slug trails that most of us leave behind, in the form of photos, posts, etc, will the next generation of leaders (political, business, and cultural) comprise only those who are exceptionally careful about their actions and digital record from a very young age? Or will the fact that nearly everyone has some number of embarrassing photos or posted comments in their past lead to a change in how much we care about such "dirt?
It seems plausible, but not inevitable, to me that by giving everyone "their own printing press" as the article puts it, we may eventually reduce the damage that results from any given embarrassing or humiliating attack. In other words, because there is so much noise out there, people may begin to filter it in a way that we did not even half a generation ago (or today). Just think about the way your mind almost subconsciously assesses the weight of most of the garbage you see on a webpage or get from a search result, honing in on the 2 or 3 bits of information that seem like they may be relevant and/or credible.
Not sure if this is where we are headed, but its a thought.
posted by syntaxbad at 12:04 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Given the massive digital slug trails that most of us leave behind, in the form of photos, posts, etc, will the next generation of leaders (political, business, and cultural) comprise only those who are exceptionally careful about their actions and digital record from a very young age? Or will the fact that nearly everyone has some number of embarrassing photos or posted comments in their past lead to a change in how much we care about such "dirt?
It seems plausible, but not inevitable, to me that by giving everyone "their own printing press" as the article puts it, we may eventually reduce the damage that results from any given embarrassing or humiliating attack. In other words, because there is so much noise out there, people may begin to filter it in a way that we did not even half a generation ago (or today). Just think about the way your mind almost subconsciously assesses the weight of most of the garbage you see on a webpage or get from a search result, honing in on the 2 or 3 bits of information that seem like they may be relevant and/or credible.
Not sure if this is where we are headed, but its a thought.
posted by syntaxbad at 12:04 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
So the best protection against online gossip is to name your children Andy Warhol or Shakespeare or One Weird Old Trick?
"Little Bobby Tables".
posted by mark242 at 12:04 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Little Bobby Tables".
posted by mark242 at 12:04 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Syntaxbad, my personal take is that it's going to be a painful generation or so. After that everyone will have embarrassing Facebook photos, ranting teenage angst posts, etc in their past - and thus it will be no big deal.
But it's going to be awkward as the 'share it all' generation moves into the working world being run by people fortunate enough to have not had access to the net while young and stupid.
posted by bitmage at 12:11 PM on May 11, 2010
But it's going to be awkward as the 'share it all' generation moves into the working world being run by people fortunate enough to have not had access to the net while young and stupid.
posted by bitmage at 12:11 PM on May 11, 2010
I share a name with a porn star. Not a very famous or well known one, but if you google my name you get things like Naughty Movie Galleries, the free porn index, so-and-so tries out the dildo machine, etc. So yeah, if employers want to bring it based on googling my name, I say let them! Kind of amuses me, the thought of HR wade through porn links on my behalf...
(I am so obviously NOT a porn star)
posted by sandraregina at 12:13 PM on May 11, 2010
(I am so obviously NOT a porn star)
posted by sandraregina at 12:13 PM on May 11, 2010
Or will the fact that nearly everyone has some number of embarrassing photos or posted comments in their past lead to a change in how much we care about such "dirt?
it's a neat thought, but i think people have a high capacity for denigrating others for having even those flaws they share, and tend to excuse their own behavior with rationalizations they wouldn't accept from others.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 12:16 PM on May 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
it's a neat thought, but i think people have a high capacity for denigrating others for having even those flaws they share, and tend to excuse their own behavior with rationalizations they wouldn't accept from others.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 12:16 PM on May 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
There's something to be said for changing one's name to "John Smith". I may look into that.
-----
Humiliation is one of those emotions that is completely self-imposed -- people will rag on you if it is in their own self-interest to do so -- and for some people, a flash of ridicule and public scorn is enough to stop them dead in their tracks. For other people, they can take anything and turn it into a lucrative career or make it an advantage. People take themselves way too seriously forgetting it's not the falling down that gets you, but the willful decision to stay down.
I couldn't disagree more. In what sense is humiliation or any other emotion for that matter, self-imposed? An emotion comes upon you, they are experienced involuntarily, not freely chosen. You can make yourself less susceptible to humiliation, or anger, or fear, and that's a worthwhile goal, but I can't see any reason to make a distinction between humiliation and any other emotion on these grounds.
Humiliation is not just an emotion that can be accepted and then overcome, it's a social dynamic as well, and there are occasions where withdrawing, i.e. "staying down", is a preferable choice to exposing oneself to continuing abuse. Shunning has obvious real world consequences, especially professional ones.
-----
It's also worth pointing out that in small towns where everyone knows everyone's business, there's more widespread exposure of one's foibles and embarrassing incidents from the past, but more of one's life is known as well. It's understood that a person is more than a character in a well known story. Certainly more so than on the internet where it's all too easy to reduce someone to just that one shaming incident.
posted by BigSky at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
-----
Humiliation is one of those emotions that is completely self-imposed -- people will rag on you if it is in their own self-interest to do so -- and for some people, a flash of ridicule and public scorn is enough to stop them dead in their tracks. For other people, they can take anything and turn it into a lucrative career or make it an advantage. People take themselves way too seriously forgetting it's not the falling down that gets you, but the willful decision to stay down.
I couldn't disagree more. In what sense is humiliation or any other emotion for that matter, self-imposed? An emotion comes upon you, they are experienced involuntarily, not freely chosen. You can make yourself less susceptible to humiliation, or anger, or fear, and that's a worthwhile goal, but I can't see any reason to make a distinction between humiliation and any other emotion on these grounds.
Humiliation is not just an emotion that can be accepted and then overcome, it's a social dynamic as well, and there are occasions where withdrawing, i.e. "staying down", is a preferable choice to exposing oneself to continuing abuse. Shunning has obvious real world consequences, especially professional ones.
-----
It's also worth pointing out that in small towns where everyone knows everyone's business, there's more widespread exposure of one's foibles and embarrassing incidents from the past, but more of one's life is known as well. It's understood that a person is more than a character in a well known story. Certainly more so than on the internet where it's all too easy to reduce someone to just that one shaming incident.
posted by BigSky at 12:20 PM on May 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
though, personally, i think it would be cool to have like an 'internet amnesty' month every five years, when the online caches could be flushed of stuff like this. not that it's workable, but maybe in the next version of the internet.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 12:21 PM on May 11, 2010
posted by fallacy of the beard at 12:21 PM on May 11, 2010
Sloop John B: "Our society has taken a turn for the truly truly ugly. This is how I feel about sites like this and this. "
And you can also have wiki centered around people you've been harassing for years, like Chris-chan.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:35 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
And you can also have wiki centered around people you've been harassing for years, like Chris-chan.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:35 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
The Catholic Church should seize this opportunity. It seems that the Internet is slowly making some form of original sin a reality. Everybody just needs to assume that there is something that he/she should be ashamed in the eyes of the many, even if he hasn't knowingly done anything and live humbly assuming the guilt. If it is impossible to separate false claims about your person once they're out there and you feel really bad about it, then use guilt control techniques that the church has perfected and live on.
posted by Free word order! at 12:35 PM on May 11, 2010
posted by Free word order! at 12:35 PM on May 11, 2010
A couple of decades ago, Linda McCartney's off-key vocals, allegedly lifted from a Wings concert soundboard, were only aired by renegade DJs.
So, I just read Infinite Jest again, and this is one of the details in one of the final scenes--the soundtrack to a brutal torture scene. Based on the rest of the book, I figured it was an urban legend? But now I'm not sure...
posted by mrgrimm at 12:35 PM on May 11, 2010
So, I just read Infinite Jest again, and this is one of the details in one of the final scenes--the soundtrack to a brutal torture scene. Based on the rest of the book, I figured it was an urban legend? But now I'm not sure...
posted by mrgrimm at 12:35 PM on May 11, 2010
Bigsky: "An emotion comes upon you, they are experienced involuntarily, not freely chosen."
Im not so sure that's the case, it strikes me that sort of attitude arises out of old beliefs of possession, where the feelings we experience are the result of something external coming into you, and changing how you feel. While emotions may be triggered by external stimulus, they arise out of your mammal brain, which in turn is filtered by your human brain to produce the response in your consciousness. Each step can be influenced by how you train your brain to respond. Saying that emotions just come upon one removes all the very real influence that a disciplined mind can achieve.
posted by pucklermuskau at 12:46 PM on May 11, 2010
Im not so sure that's the case, it strikes me that sort of attitude arises out of old beliefs of possession, where the feelings we experience are the result of something external coming into you, and changing how you feel. While emotions may be triggered by external stimulus, they arise out of your mammal brain, which in turn is filtered by your human brain to produce the response in your consciousness. Each step can be influenced by how you train your brain to respond. Saying that emotions just come upon one removes all the very real influence that a disciplined mind can achieve.
posted by pucklermuskau at 12:46 PM on May 11, 2010
i would think that emotion arises primarily out of subconscious processes (which over time perhaps can be affected), but that discipline of the mind, practically, has more to do with how one allows emotion to influence thought and action, or how one chooses to reinterpret the emotion.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 1:08 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by fallacy of the beard at 1:08 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
i would think that emotion arises primarily out of subconscious processes (which over time perhaps can be affected), but that discipline of the mind, practically, has more to do with how one allows emotion to influence thought and action, or how one chooses to reinterpret the emotion.
Seconded. I don't think it makes any sense to talk about this in terms of there being an emotion that has to be controlled to make this all better.
a) Emotions are very hard (or impossible) to control and direct, it's by no means as simple as "exerting willpower". It also depends vastly on context. Working on controlling a phobia you know is irrational is one thing; steeling yourself against shame and anger when people are deliberately shaming you to people you know and care about, and/or bringing about worse consequences like being fired, is quite another, because there's a very real cause for those feelings.
b) Even if you assume some people could manage this, it's hardly fair to consign those who can't to the consequences of humiliation, shrugging as if it were a natural force and not the actions of people with the choice to behave otherwise.
c) And even if everyone could do it, I think shame and guilt are probably an essential facet of a normal human psyche -- not that they're good per se, but they're reflections of self-worth, of enjoyment in what you do, of commitment to things, of confidence in your social position. Shame is the pain of having those things taken away from you. I'm skeptical that you can have one without the potential for the other.
c) It places the blame and the responsibility on the victim, not those who are acting unfairly to cause the situation and/or (in extreme cases) ruining someone's life, traumatising them, or whatever.
d) So yeah, I don't think that's the answer either.
Now I think it would be lovely if all this exposure made everyone cool and freak-friendly and open-minded enough to accept things in other people that they don't like themselves. But I don't think we can rely on that happening any time soon, and in the meantime, we have the worst of both worlds. I think the only solution lies in addressing those who are doing the shaming, those who are tracking information that is intended to be private or limited and treating it as if it were public, because that is what the problem is. People -- at the very least people in positions of power, like employers -- need to step away from the public's windows and/or stop shrieking at what they see there, no matter how tempting it might be to claim that such information is any of their concern, just because it can be found.
posted by Drexen at 1:51 PM on May 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
Seconded. I don't think it makes any sense to talk about this in terms of there being an emotion that has to be controlled to make this all better.
a) Emotions are very hard (or impossible) to control and direct, it's by no means as simple as "exerting willpower". It also depends vastly on context. Working on controlling a phobia you know is irrational is one thing; steeling yourself against shame and anger when people are deliberately shaming you to people you know and care about, and/or bringing about worse consequences like being fired, is quite another, because there's a very real cause for those feelings.
b) Even if you assume some people could manage this, it's hardly fair to consign those who can't to the consequences of humiliation, shrugging as if it were a natural force and not the actions of people with the choice to behave otherwise.
c) And even if everyone could do it, I think shame and guilt are probably an essential facet of a normal human psyche -- not that they're good per se, but they're reflections of self-worth, of enjoyment in what you do, of commitment to things, of confidence in your social position. Shame is the pain of having those things taken away from you. I'm skeptical that you can have one without the potential for the other.
c) It places the blame and the responsibility on the victim, not those who are acting unfairly to cause the situation and/or (in extreme cases) ruining someone's life, traumatising them, or whatever.
d) So yeah, I don't think that's the answer either.
Now I think it would be lovely if all this exposure made everyone cool and freak-friendly and open-minded enough to accept things in other people that they don't like themselves. But I don't think we can rely on that happening any time soon, and in the meantime, we have the worst of both worlds. I think the only solution lies in addressing those who are doing the shaming, those who are tracking information that is intended to be private or limited and treating it as if it were public, because that is what the problem is. People -- at the very least people in positions of power, like employers -- need to step away from the public's windows and/or stop shrieking at what they see there, no matter how tempting it might be to claim that such information is any of their concern, just because it can be found.
posted by Drexen at 1:51 PM on May 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
i share my name with a serial murderer and rapist, close to me in age, whose exploits dominate the search results.
You too, huh? Top two results for my name are Wikipedia articles about a serial killer and a college professor.
posted by mrbill at 1:58 PM on May 11, 2010
You too, huh? Top two results for my name are Wikipedia articles about a serial killer and a college professor.
posted by mrbill at 1:58 PM on May 11, 2010
I don't think that all the people putting up Whitney Huston videos were being spiteful or mean or small-minded, as the article suggests. Tickets to those shows cost a LOT of money. IMO, they were performing a public service by outing how her voice was gone.
Okay, not really a public service. But I heard her sing on a morning show and I would have felt ripped off if I had been a big fan of hers (I'm not), paid to see her in concert, and ended up hearing her croak the lyrics.
posted by misha at 2:18 PM on May 11, 2010
Okay, not really a public service. But I heard her sing on a morning show and I would have felt ripped off if I had been a big fan of hers (I'm not), paid to see her in concert, and ended up hearing her croak the lyrics.
posted by misha at 2:18 PM on May 11, 2010
"though, personally, i think it would be cool to have like an 'internet amnesty' month every five years, when the online caches could be flushed of stuff like this. not that it's workable, but maybe in the next version of the internet."
Doesn't that happen anyway, though? It's just an estimate, but I'd guess that at least 90% of everything I've written on the Internet is gone, with more of it vanishing every year. Most listservs, message boards and blogs have lifetimes of less than five years (Mefi being an exception, of course), and when they shut down their data usually goes with them. Computers wear out, software gets upgraded, people lose interest... Entropy rules out in the end. Google cache is only temporary, and services like the Internet Archive are sharply limited.
Maybe it's different if you become internet famous for something, like the Star Wars kid. But even that fades with time as more interesting scandals or weirdos come along. My advice (worth exactly nothing) to anyone who's humiliated on the Internet is to wait for a while, because people will move on to the next shiny thing and forget about you before long.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:28 PM on May 11, 2010
Doesn't that happen anyway, though? It's just an estimate, but I'd guess that at least 90% of everything I've written on the Internet is gone, with more of it vanishing every year. Most listservs, message boards and blogs have lifetimes of less than five years (Mefi being an exception, of course), and when they shut down their data usually goes with them. Computers wear out, software gets upgraded, people lose interest... Entropy rules out in the end. Google cache is only temporary, and services like the Internet Archive are sharply limited.
Maybe it's different if you become internet famous for something, like the Star Wars kid. But even that fades with time as more interesting scandals or weirdos come along. My advice (worth exactly nothing) to anyone who's humiliated on the Internet is to wait for a while, because people will move on to the next shiny thing and forget about you before long.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:28 PM on May 11, 2010
I too share my name with a porn star. She's really pretty too.
I know it's easier to blame the victims for being offended, but I prefer to blame the people who intentionally shame and humiliate others.
posted by Danila at 4:06 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
I know it's easier to blame the victims for being offended, but I prefer to blame the people who intentionally shame and humiliate others.
posted by Danila at 4:06 PM on May 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
I worry about my kids. What if one of them had the shit smashed out of him at school [an hey, who hasn't?] and then footage is posted on the intertubes for all to see? Hahahaha! Or a major screw up at a sports event? Or losing their strides in a fence climbing accident. Or going temporarily insane and bawling their eyes out over something completely stupid and trivial?
Or a million other highly embarrassing things that happened to us as we pre-videophone kids grew up, which would normally only be seen by a dozen or so people, and remembered ten years later by maybe two or three.
/did not ever lose my strides
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:03 PM on May 11, 2010
Or a million other highly embarrassing things that happened to us as we pre-videophone kids grew up, which would normally only be seen by a dozen or so people, and remembered ten years later by maybe two or three.
/did not ever lose my strides
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:03 PM on May 11, 2010
ShawnStruck:
And you can also have wiki centered around people you've been harassing for years, like Chris-chan."
That is so fucked up. What is wrong with people?
posted by deborah at 12:52 AM on May 12, 2010
And you can also have wiki centered around people you've been harassing for years, like Chris-chan."
That is so fucked up. What is wrong with people?
posted by deborah at 12:52 AM on May 12, 2010
deborah: "ShawnStruck:
And you can also have wiki centered around people you've been harassing for years, like Chris-chan."
That is so fucked up. What is wrong with people?"
The people behind the wiki think that doing what they are doing helps Chris-Chan and others. Really.
posted by ShawnStruck at 10:33 PM on May 13, 2010
And you can also have wiki centered around people you've been harassing for years, like Chris-chan."
That is so fucked up. What is wrong with people?"
The people behind the wiki think that doing what they are doing helps Chris-Chan and others. Really.
posted by ShawnStruck at 10:33 PM on May 13, 2010
« Older 3-D != Serious Drama | 1 billion people are hungry Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by amethysts at 9:37 AM on May 11, 2010 [3 favorites]