It is currently Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:31 am



Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 #metoo movement discussion 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: #metoo movement discussion

LEAVES wrote:
It wasn't really ranked in any way, just a list.

My bad. I still think that "conversations" should take precedence in any case.

LEAVES wrote:
You see the Ansari thing as damaging to the movement, it seems.

Um, not exactly. What I find damaging is the kind of impulsivity that erupts on social media. There's a number of other examples because it's pretty much a weekly occurance. Someone misunderstands/misrepresents/takes out of context a particular item, and everyone weighs in with the hottest takes, and no one wants to wait to be the 314th comment on a tweet thread. There are a lot of positives to social media, but there's also a learning curve and everyone is figuring out how to discipline their use of it, and this is one of the most obvious vulnerabilities right now. The dopamine rush to react to the day's outrage needs to be tempered by priorities over what's truly and productively outrageous.

LEAVES wrote:
People behave differently on the internet than in real life because the normative forces that govern their behavior are not present on the internet. It makes the point of the power of normative forces in the real world quite clearly.

But in the context of social media, which was the behavior I was addressing, the point is lost.

LEAVES wrote:
I mentioned that "extrajudicial punishment" via shaming has bad things, like "punishing" gay or ugly people. However, that's largely because of a societal rot, not because of movements.

Sure, but social movements are not immune from societal rot, and the point I've been making is to be wary of the ways in which the societal rot of popular prejudices and mass judgment can infest and blunt the necessary focus of the movement.

LEAVES wrote:
the journalism is most typically about the individual.

Not sure I agree with this either. The Weinstein work was ostensibly about individual circumstances, but it also laid out the network of protection that he had erected throughout the entertainment and publishing world to abet the silence. There are several society-wide implications to this, most notably in how we understand how media power is wielded. And there's a lot of journalism outside of Weinstein which is greatly enhancing our understanding of the disparities women face in other areas.

LEAVES wrote:
I think you're downplaying the fact that #metoo is mostly increasing the good that normative regulation is doing by eliminating both the stigma against women who have been victimized and further eliminating the acceptance of victimizers.

I don't see where I've done any such "downplaying". I've been very clear on separating my criticisms of certain kinds of overreach and overreactions from the overall positive impact of #metoo.

LEAVES wrote:
Since normative forces are unavoidable it doesn't do much good to complain about their negative effects. The only way to change them is through mass movements or slow, slow social change.

Normative forces need to be qualitatively evaluated. We seem to agree that there are, historically, net negative normative forces which can be employed by interested parties to reinforce their respective biases, just as simply as other forces can be employed by interested parties to demolish these biases. We shouldn't rest on the notion that these forces exist and are "unavoidable". That's not the point. The primary concern should be to take care that such forces, such norms, are maximally beneficial. A reorientation of public perception towards the prominence of female abuse and subjugation is maximally beneficial. Social habits of daily scaffolding are not. Note that the latter is neither necessary nor emblematic of the #metoo movement, but it is a natural human tendency that we should try to resist.


Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:23 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: #metoo movement discussion

"Nobody Is Going to Believe You"; Bryan Singer's victims tell their stories

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:57 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: #metoo movement discussion

Jinnistan wrote:
Um, not exactly. What I find damaging is the kind of impulsivity that erupts on social media. There's a number of other examples because it's pretty much a weekly occurance. Someone misunderstands/misrepresents/takes out of context a particular item, and everyone weighs in with the hottest takes, and no one wants to wait to be the 314th comment on a tweet thread. There are a lot of positives to social media, but there's also a learning curve and everyone is figuring out how to discipline their use of it, and this is one of the most obvious vulnerabilities right now. The dopamine rush to react to the day's outrage needs to be tempered by priorities over what's truly and productively outrageous.
People don't understand the ethics of social media, that is for sure. People also don't understand the dynamics of mass social movements. Put those together and you get a shitstorm.

Jinnistan wrote:
Sure, but social movements are not immune from societal rot, and the point I've been making is to be wary of the ways in which the societal rot of popular prejudices and mass judgment can infest and blunt the necessary focus of the movement.
I agree that people can lose sight of the movement, which would constitute rot. I would just be very careful to characterize fringe people and their errant followers, whatever their numbers (often much, much smaller than the majority) as rot when they were never really on board to begin with or never were capable of staying with the thread. In such a case, the movement may be unaffected and better without them - they're splinters, if they were ever a part, or hangers-on, if they never understood it in the first place. You know those little fish that follow around the bigger fish eating the things that grow off of them? Yeah. Those.

Jinnistan wrote:
Not sure I agree with this either. The Weinstein work was ostensibly about individual circumstances, but it also laid out the network of protection that he had erected throughout the entertainment and publishing world to abet the silence. There are several society-wide implications to this, most notably in how we understand how media power is wielded. And there's a lot of journalism outside of Weinstein which is greatly enhancing our understanding of the disparities women face in other areas.
I'll amend my post to say "the journalism that is most widely read." None of the stories you mentioned were retweeted 1/1,000th as many times as the Weinstein story or any of the other top 10, I would imagine. This is not to say that it's bad journalism, but not impactful - and we're worse off for it, certainly.

Jinnistan wrote:
I don't see where I've done any such "downplaying". I've been very clear on separating my criticisms of certain kinds of overreach and overreactions from the overall positive impact of #metoo.
Perhaps the correct phrasing is not "downplaying" but "validating invalid criticisms", which has the same effect. You're certainly attempting to do the right thing, but as the Clinton example shows it's playing into the opponents' hands.

Jinnistan wrote:
Normative forces need to be qualitatively evaluated. We seem to agree that there are, historically, net negative normative forces which can be employed by interested parties to reinforce their respective biases, just as simply as other forces can be employed by interested parties to demolish these biases. We shouldn't rest on the notion that these forces exist and are "unavoidable". That's not the point. The primary concern should be to take care that such forces, such norms, are maximally beneficial. A reorientation of public perception towards the prominence of female abuse and subjugation is maximally beneficial. Social habits of daily scaffolding are not. Note that the latter is neither necessary nor emblematic of the #metoo movement, but it is a natural human tendency that we should try to resist.
I agree with you up to the point where you said daily scaffolding, because i have no idea what that means. But maybe I agree with that too.

_________________
LEAVES come from TREES
Retired


Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:23 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: #metoo movement discussion

LEAVES wrote:
You know those little fish that follow around the bigger fish eating the things that grow off of them? Yeah. Those.

Sounds like "the masses", and the problem with masses is their susceptibility to mob mentality.

LEAVES wrote:
I'll amend my post to say "the journalism that is most widely read." None of the stories you mentioned were retweeted 1/1,000th as many times as the Weinstein story or any of the other top 10, I would imagine. This is not to say that it's bad journalism, but not impactful - and we're worse off for it, certainly.

Again, this says more about current social media habits than the quality or efficacy of journalism. Note that two of those links were to widely read mainstream publications, The Washington Post and The Guardian, so these are hardly obscure sources. The problem is in the quality of information that people do share on social media, which ranges from flippant to fictitious. Maybe people should read more widely? Anyway, this is a good example of why I value journalism more than what's trending on twitter.

LEAVES wrote:
Perhaps the correct phrasing is not "downplaying" but "validating invalid criticisms", which has the same effect. You're certainly attempting to do the right thing, but as the Clinton example shows it's playing into the opponents' hands.

This is more of the binary thinking that I don't subscribe to. My criticisms are not automatically equivalent to all of the other criticisms that some people will use to attack #metoo, which is especially true when I've explicitly described how my criticism is not an attack on #metoo. But, I guess, any criticism in the proximity of #metoo puts me in the same category of "the opponent". It's us/them bullshit, and it never takes long before the shibboleths and ultimatums follow. I know enough about the history of mass movements to be wary of loyalty purges. But I get it. I'm either with you or with them, so either eat the script or shit and split.

LEAVES wrote:
I agree with you up to the point where you said daily scaffolding, because i have no idea what that means. But maybe I agree with that too.

The pun is in the scaffold - a stage for public executions. The punitive instincts of the mob can be highly addictive.


Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:07 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.