Who should be shamed, and who not?

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by matt4077 on Monday August 21, 2017 @12:57PM (#15065890)

Shaming is a deep-seated evolutionary mechanism to somewhat gently encourage people to conform to the norms of society. It works pretty great on almost everyone.

I'm also wondering why HN is having dozens of articles hit the frontpage defending white supremacists. I distinctly remember a general agreement of get-a-job when Occupy Wall Street was forced off the streets by police.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by pc86 on Monday August 21, 2017 @01:03PM (#15065935)

Dozens of pro-white supremacist articles? Please provide links. I haven't seen a single one.

And I don't know what that has to do with OWS or the feeling that they should get jobs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by imron on Monday August 21, 2017 @01:25PM (#15066080)

> Dozens of pro-white supremacist articles? Please provide links.

Some people conflate defending the free speech rights of white supremacists as being pro-white supremacist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by pc86 on Monday August 21, 2017 @01:44PM (#15066199)

That's why I asked for links - I simply don't believe there has been even a single pro-white supremacy article.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by tedsanders on Monday August 21, 2017 @02:21PM (#15066485)

I hesitate to comment because I don't think this conversation is productive. But I'll stray in. Your request for links is strange because Matt never said there were pro-supremacy posts. He said there were posts defending white supremacists. You have conflated the two concepts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by benchaney on Monday August 21, 2017 @02:38PM (#15066636)

Defending the right to free speech for everyone is not the same as defending white supremacists, so it sounds like you are the one conflating two concepts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by tedsanders on Tuesday August 22, 2017 @01:41PM (#15074708)

My apologies if I gave you this impression. I only tried to clarify what was in Matt's post. I didn't think I was making any positive claims myself, but apparently I gave that impression. I'm sorry to have posted in this conversation and I wish I could delete my comment. I feel very sensitive to receiving downvotes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by pc86 on Monday August 21, 2017 @02:23PM (#15066498)

I don't take "defending white supremacists" as defending their right to free speech or to assemble peaceable (which I support). I take it as defending them, which I don't.

I may be misinterpreting him for sure! That's part of why I asked.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by module0000 on Monday August 21, 2017 @02:07PM (#15066383)

What articles? Sounds like you are trying to "shame" HN. Shame....what a state of affairs we are in. We write articles, comments, and do all sorts of things over what boils down to "hurt feelings". Grow up world, there are real problems and actual hardships that exist, and shame has never been either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by dang on Monday August 21, 2017 @05:19PM (#15067948)

That's probably sample bias, because the posts you disagree with stand out more (where by 'you' I mean everybody). There's almost no general agreement on HN. That's why the threads on divisive topics are so divisive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who should be shamed, and who not? by Jonaisoi on Monday August 21, 2017 @05:07PM (#15067863)

I don't think its any surprise that class tensions that could have unified the lower classes have been redirected into racial/gender tensions that have us fighting...

[ Parent | on HN ]