My bad. I still think that "conversations" should take precedence in any case.LEAVES wrote:It wasn't really ranked in any way, just a list.
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:You see the Ansari thing as damaging to the movement, it seems.
But in the context of social media, which was the behavior I was addressing, the point is lost.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.
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: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.
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:the journalism is most typically about the individual.
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: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.
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.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.